[1000mp] Integrity of QST Reviews

[John Rippey]

	I understand that the ARRL has to tread lightly where advertisers are 
concerned, and pull their punches in reviews in QST to some extent as a 
result. You can see the same thing in reviews of boats in boating 
magazines. With regard to boats, however, I find Dean Travis Clarke's 
reviews in "Sport Fishing" helpful because after a while you can pick up 
his cues and understand when he is underwhelmed with a boat under test. 
Also, "Sport Fishing" does not test every boat, only those it deems won't 
get a raspberry in print. So a couple of years ago when Dean Travis Clarke 
praised the Boston Whaler 28-foot Conquest as "the best handling 28-footer 
he had ever experienced," I believed him because he had never said that 
about any other boat of that size. When Clarke complained another time 
about unacceptable stern fishtailing in a following sea in Whaler's 
flagship 32-foot twin-diesel inboard (a $300,000 item), I also believed 
him. My point is there are ways to handle the problem of printing honest 
reviews in an advertising-dependent publication without sacrificing your 
integrity.

	However, in the instance of the IC-746PRO review, QST and ARRL have 
crossed way over the imaginary integrity line, in my opinion. What is a new 
ham to think after reading this review? That he has discovered amateur 
radio paradise, that's what. QST advises that the IC-746PRO achieves (for 
the first time, no less) state-of-the-art transceiver performance. No need 
to look further. It's too bad new hams will be misled by this exaggeration. 
In time, they will discover they have been misled. This review contributes 
to the cynicism about the ARRL that is already prevalent among many hams 
(ARRL only has 20% of licensed hams as members and less than 1% of licensed 
hams responded to the ARRL's "refarming" survey last year) as witness some 
of the other posts on this subject. Not a happy situation.

73,
John, W3ULS