Forum - View topicSurvey: Should ANN Review its own Simulcasts?
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
agila61
 Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||
A "split the difference" policy would be to include the shows in the preview guide with a disclaimer, but omit them from Shelf Life, and rather than posting a full review, post a collection of links to reviews elsewhere online. Shelf Life is where the prospect for both actual and appearance of conflict of interest is the greatest, since it has an explicit "streamworthy/flushable" for all streams, and the bar is explicitly placed higher for streams than for DVD's, where something can be both shit as a stream and worthy of rental as a DVD. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
You can argue this point all the way down the rabbit hole to where any news site that accepts advertisement dollars from Funimation (which is, uh, all of them that have enough readers to get ad buys) should ethically not ever cover any Funimation licensing announcements (hell, not to mention dub cast announcements, DVD promotions or release dates), because that could be seen as promotional. Which is arguing for some weird version of purity that's impractical, would bankrupt every entertainment publication and website in the country in a matter of weeks if followed to the letter (goodbye, movie ad buys on movie sites! Goodbye, exclusive trailers and set visit reports on movie sites! So long, book ads on book review sites!) and assumes corruption where there is none. We have a video streaming service, which launched years ago. Now we have some shows that are being simulcast. The show itself is basically incidental to the service, a'la Hulu or CR. The difference is that we're *much* smaller and the video service has kinda been bolted on to the side of our existing business, in the service of what this site's owner believes our readers want, which is their usual news, reviews and forum chatter, and now also a place where they can watch the shows themselves. That's kinda the long and short of it all here. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sandstar
Posts: 196 |
|
|||||
Then how do they know if it's good? If that's the case, then it seems that these are little more than ads. |
||||||
|
||||||
Sunday Silence
 Posts: 2047 |
|
|||||
|
Simple idea: allow members of this site devoid of any financial relationship or incentive perks to ANN to review said episodes.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Banden
 Posts: 140 |
|
|||||
Setting aside the bits about complicated multi-part reviews, the more I think about Sandstar's comments above the more I feel like he maybe onto something really crucial here. I'd love to hear some staff feedback on this point, if Tempest or Zac would be kind enough to oblige: Just what do you intend to do the day one of your writers submits a review for OreImo or another ANN streaming property looking like one of the reviews linked below? Will you really have the nerve to post it unfiltered in all its glory, when you are fully aware that the subject matter is profit-making investment for ANN? animenewsnetwork.com/review/mao-chan/dvd-1 animenewsnetwork.com/review/ragnarok-the-animation/dvd-1 I'm sitting here at my computer trying to read your collective minds and predict what your response to the question might be. The one possibility that comes to mind is: "ANN would never simulcast something like that." But I sincerely hope I am mistaken there, as that would seem to flaunt the whole concept of editorial independence? If your simulcast properties are being vetted for content to ensure they garner the review staff's approval, isn't that as bad or worse than instructing your writers to write positive reviews as marketing vehicles? So what would management do in that situation? |
||||||
|
||||||
Leebo
 Posts: 660 Location: Somerville, MA |
|
|||||
What's little more than ads? The potential reviews? They're going to watch the show before they review it. They just can't watch the show before they decide to air it. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
I do not censor nor change my critics' opinions. If they hated it, they hated it, and I publish the review where they hated it. End of story. I've never done anything different than that. |
||||||
|
||||||
Shichimi
 Posts: 349 |
|
|||||
That made me lol - and want to see it! But seriously, that review (didn't read the Ragnarok one) didn't really trample all over the show, it merely put forward the opinion that it was weirdly targeted at the wrong demographic. The review was pretty clear in praising it as something rugrats would lap up. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sandstar
Posts: 196 |
|
|||||
We're not saying you'd censor it, but would you continue to host a show your reviewers have said is crap? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sandstar
Posts: 196 |
|
|||||
No, the shows themselves are little more than ads. If they host anything that they can get companies to agree to let them simulcast, and they continue to host shows that are bad, then the shows are little more than ads. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||
You seem to be trapped in the "there is an objective truth whether a show is good or bad" space ... ... when the "truth" is the subjective question of whether or not that show entertained that viewer. If ANN is streaming a show that failed to entertain its reviewers, it is doing so for the fans of the shows who are entertained by it. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
Again - Neither I personally nor anyone on my editorial team have anything to do with the decision regarding what to stream or when or any of it. I don't work with that stuff. Further, this is kind of a weird question; it's just a review. The purpose of the streaming player is to give people a place to watch anime on ANN, not provide some kind of judgment clearinghouse where you can only watch shows Theron Martin likes. That's ridiculous and completely overstates the purpose and power of a review, positive or negative. Reviews these days are jumping-off points for discussion, an expression of someone's opinion that people can either agree with or argue with, not some monolithic judgment call that determines the ultimate worth of a piece of entertainment. They're part of the fan dialogue. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Leebo
Posts: 660 Location: Somerville, MA |
|
|||||
Did you read what he wrote about it? He was familiar with the light novels, and made the decision based on that (and presumably the promotional material that existed at the time). I don't see what you're trying to get at anyway. It's not possible for anyone to watch a significant amount (or in most cases, any at all) of a series if they want to simulcast it. It's always going to be a bit of a crap shoot. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sandstar
Posts: 196 |
|
|||||
|
[quote="Zac"]
So, reviews are just supposed to be for "discussion?" Then why bother having "reviews" just have someone rant about a series, if all you want is "discussion"? I thought a review was supposed to tell you if something was worthwhile to watch, or at the very least, to describe a series well enough so that someone could figure out if they'd like it or not. Would you be perfectly fine with ANN hosting a series your own reviewer said was garbage? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Leebo
Posts: 660 Location: Somerville, MA |
|
|||||
|
Where are you going with this, Sandstar? Do you trust the reviewers to be honest?
If yes, then vote yes. If not, then vote no. They have said again and again that the decisions on what to stream and the decisions on what to review are not being made by the same parts of ANN and will not influence each other, so there's only so many ways they can say it. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group