Stereophile's refusal to review more low

Sounds like payolla to me Ehider. If that is true, I would seriously have to reconsider keeping my subscription. It would seem that they do not have the best intentions for those who keep their business afloat. Oh, by the way, that's you and me.

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.