Bob Stuart (Meridian) issues denial of Stereophile story (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

Friends,
It looks like Stereophile really screwed up this story. Although the article in fairness claimed it was an AES rumour, Bob Stuart has vehemently denied the story. From Stuart Robinson of High Fidelity Review...

Meridian’s Robert Stuart has vehemently denied reports suggesting that the company were no longer interested in supporting DVD-Audio.

You can link to the full story from here:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...snumber=395817
He did point out that Stereophile has been a good source in the past, which I guess made this all the more surprising.
Time will tell if the hot "hybrid disc" rumour pans out, but they clearly state a variety of sources on that score.

 

[KeithH]

Stereophile should issue a formal apology to Messrs. Boothroyd and Stuart.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Keith,
They are usually fairly good about doing that. I have been reading the magazine over twenty years and they try to be good journalists and have issued all sorts of errata and clarifications over the years.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, most magazines will publish some sort of retraction or apology. However, if Stereophile does issue an apology to the folks at Meridian, I hope they don't bury it in an Errors & Corrections-type section.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

The author of the original article/news item should be fired, plain and simple.

It is clear that the author has some type of agenda and is using the publication to further that agenda.

I agree with Keith, a larger scale apology then a mere errata is in order this this was an attempt to damage the credibility of a company and an individual.

I suspect this will totally be ignored at the Asylum.


Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It is clear that the author has some type of agenda and is using the publication to further that agenda.

John,

That's a very tough statement. Do you have anything to base this on?

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Sure.

1) The reporter was factually incorrect, and the simplest of checking like a call or e-mail to Meridian could have cleared this up easily.

2) Without any checking, he had the news item published anyway.

3) The submission for publication in June would have been on or about April 1st. This is fully 5 weeks ahead of the convention. 45 days in advance (had Stuart actually cancelled) is hardly "at the last minute" unless we're talking a geological or cosmological time scale.

4) Why would anyone submit a news item of this nature in advance of the event /b] and then refer to it as an "AES Rumor"?

Be objective and think for a minute about the lead time that a print magazine has between submission for publication and street date.

Then think about the dates of the Munich AES convention, which was May 10th-13th. You posted your first "rebroadcast" on May 16th.

Regards,

 

[KeithH]

John said:

I suspect this will totally be ignored at the Asylum.

Of course it will! It doesn't support the unwritten, but plainly obvious mission of the Hi-Rez Highway.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

3) The submission for publication in June would have been on or about April 1st. This is fully 5 weeks ahead of the convention. 45 days in advance (had Stuart actually cancelled) is hardly "at the last minute" unless we're talking a geological or cosmological time scale.

John,

I believe you are making educated guesses about the timeline here without knowing the facts. I suspect it is possible that it was a late submission since it was in the industry news area.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
Maybe yes, maybe no.
All your arguing about is that it might have been submitted slightly later than April 1st. Fine.
It doesn't change the fact that an "AES Rumour" was submitted prior to the actual occurrence of the event, or do you think it's possible to:

• Attend the convention
• Write the "news" article
• Have the article edited
• Get the issue laid out
• Send the issue off to the printers
• Mail the issue to your home

all in the span of less than one week?
Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Have the article edited

John,
I am not trying to completely defend Stereophile here, but to just give them benefit of the doubt. JA could have edited such a short piece at the last minute and inserted into the industry news layout all in a relatively brief period of time, following a conversation about the AES rumour. Peter, who may or may not have an agenda (no enough info at this point), could have been intrigued given the back and forth Bob has had with Jim Angus over the years and perhaps read far too deeply into the situation under the influence of strong AES gossip.
I would expect Stereophile to issue a formal apology in any event, in the absence of any new information.
Remember, we have not heard Peter's or JA's side of the story yet. Clearly there is some explaining to do or it will hurt their reputation, which even Bob has said adheres to high standards.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
Sure, he could have done that one part, but I listed a series of items
Let's cut it down to a minimum amount. Zero time to edit. Zero time to layout. Two weeks to print, one week for mail.
Then, we'll do the math:
You had the first post May 16th.
Subtract 1 week to mail it to your home. That's May 9th.
Subtract two weeks for printing. That would make it April 25th.
The convention was May 10th-13th.
I suppose we could make it work where this item came from attending the AES convention....
Let's change the time lines a little bit. Assume the story was submitted the last night of the convention.
0 days to write the story.
1 day to print.
2 days to mail.
Or we could assume that he submitted the story the 1st night of the convention (May 10th).....
That gives us:
4 days to print
2 days to mail.
Are you starting to see how preposterous this is yet?
Meridian (and Bob Stuart) have had to spend time denying this rumour, and you don't have a problem with the consequences of publishing this "news item"?
I am aghast at how happy you were to post speculations about Meridian and Bob Stuart. You also spoke of concerns about their business practices conflicting with personal convictions. How do you feel as a business strategy consultant now that the truth is being found out?
It is painfully clear this "news item" wasn't correct on any of the details, yet you are quite willing to give S'phile and the author the benefit of the doubt.
So, if it wasn't a personal agenda, it was monumentally bad "reporting".
Since the Editor has final say, JA has equal blame with the author on this. He could easily have not published, but chose to do so, without having all the facts in.
Highly embarrasing at best, and possibly far, far worse.
Here's what isn't up for speculation:
1) The author submitted a "news item" that was nothing more than unverified rumours.
2) The editor chose to publish the item.
3) Meridian and Bob Stuart have spent many hours denying the false rumour.
Any way you slice it this is very bad and very embarrasing for Stereophile.
Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

“…astonished and more than a little disturbed to see this magazine – which hitherto has had the highest professional standards in reporting – slip up by carrying van Willenswaard’s agenda-loaded pieces.”

Highest professional standards? I guess I am not the only one.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

As a strategy consultant, I love the truth it always makes things simpler and better. In fact, we try to make better guesses at what the truth is likely to be in the future. Moreover in great uncertainty, we try to make choices with highest probability of success.

Given your self-professed love of truth, I'm aghast that you would comment on the rumors which were either:

A) Plants by someone who has an agenda against Meridian.
B) Plants by the story's author.
C) Fabrications by the story's author.

To really get to the truth, Peter has to mention who his source was. IMO, journalistic integrity doesn't apply when the source lied.

Any bets on learning that? I'd say slim and none.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,

Lighten up. I think you are beating a dead horse here.

Really, do you own equity in Meridian?

I have been reasonable all along here. When such an interesting story comes along from a source that has been very reliable in the past, I think it is perfectly fine to post and comment on. You are purely speculating on A, B, and C above and all the negativity gets old.

What say we call it a day before some forum member gets bored?

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Your question is insulting to me personally, and frankly is way over the top.

No, I don't have any equity with Meridian. Nor do I have any equity with any manufacturer in the A/V industry. Please feel free to check the accuracty of this statement wherever you want.

I do own stock with my full-time employer, but my holdings are literally inconsequential with respect to the outstanding shares.

Regards,

 

[Rob Roth]

There's an ancient wisdom that says something about the mouse running for cover when the elephants rumble....
Still, I'll take my chances and try to get a word in between salvos.

I can easily believe that a reporter went off half-cocked; saw this all the time in DC. But I don't think S'phile has a secret agenda against DVDA or for SACD. Hell, Atkinson has enough trouble keeping the analog loonies at bay. And to be purely cynical (given S'phile's ownership structure), I'd be very surprised that a responsible editor would endorse a campaign against a major player in the high end. This is speculation, but perhaps JA missed the boat and something got into the edition which would otherwise have been caught.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Rob,

I agree. While Stereophile has always liked SACD, they have done a number of features on DVD Audio and regularly reported DVDA news and have had DVDA music reviews. The same applies even more to The Absolute Sound which has also had opposing views from both camps presented fairly and a fairly negative article from Robert Greene on Super Audio. I think the high end press is trying to stay neutral overall because we don't know which one will prevail, if any.

 

[Rob Roth]

It seems to me that Harley and Atkinson have tough balancing acts to perform. Each has competing constituencies who jealously count pages given to 'rival' formats and are ready to cancel subscriptions. Reber has it easier; after his latest purge (Hardesty and Buettner) he can focus (no pun...) WSR's editorial direction on hi-rez video. Perhaps John can establish a strong audio voice. I like WSR; even with Reber's quirks it has some good info.

 

[John Kotches]

Rob,

I think that with Perry, Doug Blackburn and myself we'll develop a voice over time.

We all have our opinions, and discussion is great.

What isn't great is when unfounded rumours get passed around as fact.

Lee,

According to John Atkinson, the "AES Rumors" are from the New York AES convention in November 2001.

This means 6 months from convention to publication. Given this piece of information there should have been adequate time to verify the information prior to publication.

Regards,