Some of the Worst Offenders in Bad Audio Forum Behavior Are Not Regular Forum Members


I've noticed first hand a disturbing trend over at Stereophile for the past couple of years that whenever someone knowledgeable challenges the mantra put forth by some of their editors, the Chief Editor, Mr. Atkinson, demands that the poster put forth personal information about themselves and any possible affiliations they may have with regard to employment that Mr. Atkinson might consider some kind of conflict of interest. Most notably, this occurred recently with a user named Archimago - a popular member of Computer Audiophile who extensively examined MQA, it's claims, and the claims made for it by Stereophile staff. Mr. Atkinson repeatedly challenged the author for his identity and professional affiliations - without which, he would disregard the message conveyed by said forum member. Mr. Atkinson has gone even further in other instances of which I personally witnessed first hand. He insists on banning from Stereophile's forum anyone whom he believes has a duty to publicly identify themselves without specifying the criteria behind the demand - other than that an industry affiliation might exist. I would encourage readers here to visit Computer Audiophile and search for Archimago /MQA discussions to see what I'm on about first hand.

The point of raising this is not necessarily to drag Mr. Atkinson through the mud but to highlight a key aspect of hypocrisy with respect to Mr. Atkinson's "policy" and how that relates to ALL online forums. Time and again, we're reminded in various forums when ideas are presented and challenged in a heated atmosphere - "FOCUS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER - NOT THE CREDENTIALS OR PERCEIVED FAILINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING HIS OR HER POINT". This in my view has always been good advice. When we "play the ball" and not  "the man", it is much easier to maintain a civil exchange of ideas/experiences.  So where does Mr. Atkinson's insistence on identifying qualifications of the person fit in to this concept? It seems that every time he or a staff member is personally challenged for facts, he resorts to this "policy" as a form of censorship.  So basically what I"m saying here is that there's plenty of evidence that in some circles, the very people who should be encouraging us all to focus on the merits of the message - letting it stand or fall on its own without involving the supposed "credentials" of the messenger, - these people are in fact the worst offenders among us. Instead of setting a good example and sticking to it, they are doing the opposite while on occasion imploring the rest of us "regular members" to "do as I say - not as I do". I no longer participate in Stereophile forums because of this obvious cute form of censorship that has been employed. I hope that kind of thing never happens here on Audiogon. My guess, however, is that since Agon moderators aren't in the business of promoting/reviewing certain products that come along, that issue is not likely to present itself.
In any case, how do you feel about the privacy rights of other forum members? Should everyone be required to put forth their real name and potential industry affiliation or should that only apply to people who appear to be trying to sell something other than knowledge in the course of posting?
cj1965
To educated professionals in the business, these trade magazines offer the illusion of integrity and honesty and nothing more. Mr. Atkinson’s blatant censorship policy with respect to an unknown who has no industry affiliations - a person like Archimago - is a shining example of just how corrupt the "audiophile trade press" really is. Sadly, this pay to play game has helped decimate what was at one time a much larger market segment. The focus shift to ever more costly "audio jewelry" in recent years has accelerated the demise - to the extent that there really no longer is a presence at the CES. This year was a disaster. And the trade press have no one else to blame. With their greed, they brought it on themselves.

I’ve been posting, ie paying attention in a myriad of ways..... since before the internet existed [’93-’94, approx], with about 30k pages of self written data out there. I’ve been watching this since before it began.

Portable digital audio, cell phones and ipods, is what killed the audio market. Changing demographics. $500-1000 cell phones... where the money would have went toward a modest audio system in a prior era of electronics and communication. Cellphones, portable audio, computers, and the internet, four things that were not there in the heyday of audio. People will 'get off' in whatever way they can, so it is no surprise that audio (full size gear) was so successful for that period of about 30-40 years, and no surprise that it declined as the 4 mentioned horsemen of the 'home audio/stereo' apocalypse came on line, over time.

Anything else (that has happened) is almost purely minor and incidental to the situation. Almost zero of it can be laid at the feet of an audio magazine, no matter how it is run. MQA is an attempt at explicit and overt control of a shrinking market.

The market went in the direction it could as it is about profit, not saving music for ..someone..(sacrificing themselves on an altar, for who, specifically?), it’s about keeping the doors open and the given audio enterprises. They simply went to where the customers were, in a shrinking and changing demographic. No hidden agenda there, just common sense as applied to business structuring in a largely insurmountable scenario.

MQA is the same, it’s just good business sense for members of the RIAA and so on. Limited views they may all be, in my thinking, but they are what they are. And they (as business ideals and as open acts) are not automatically sacrificial to the ideals I may personally hold, they simply are. I happen to think MQA is a very bad idea and that much music will be lost to it, for a decade or more, if it goes mainstream.
I’m into this for the music and business has always played a far down the line second fiddle. Probably why I’m not as successful as I could be.

A wise businessman (business oriented) would have never participated in this thread at any price.

Sadly, the ones who are in it for the money will receive benefit from my participation. Such is the world.
Very true, in this part of it anyway .
Sorry , I shouldn't have been so flippant .
cj1965,

JA is a friend of mine and I don’t appreciate your coming over here disparaging him. Plus you’re a coward since he can’t defend himself. Crawl back under whatever rock you came from. Still think that’s comic relief?