Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uunet!timbuk!willow23!rice
From: rice@willow23.cray.com (Jonathan Rice)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: PC Magazine Testing Irregularities
Message-ID: <102151.21509@timbuk.cray.com>
Date: 26 Apr 91 16:03:10 GMT
References: <89@omen.UUCP> <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com> <1991Apr24.184543.27339@looking.on.ca> <1991Apr26.031500.7938@anomaly.sbs.com>
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN
Lines: 17

In article <1991Apr26.031500.7938@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>I'm sorry, but over the past years I've seen too much evidence to support
>the opinion that $big ads$ result in good reviews.
>
>If you've ever noticed, all their big advertisers get the glowing reviews.

It isn't difficult to imagine a causal relationship between large ads and
good reviews, that does not require you to assume malfeasance by the
magazine:

Good products --> good reviews (honest journalism)
       and
Good products --> high sales revenue --> big advertising budget --> full
  page, four-color advertisements (sound business)

-- 
Jonathan C. Rice  |  Internet: rice@cray.com  |  UUCP: uunet!cray!rice