clckworang

But with a name like "Fox Executive" and coming here directly speaking as a representative of a company, I would like to think that he wouldn't be so quick to take someone's bait and spew those kinds of things back out.

I'm not saying that he wasn't justified in trying to defend himself, but I'd like to think that an executive, who has identified himself as such, would want to keep his head above the fray.

As a physician, would you go to a medically oriented message board filled with your patients, or at least prospective patients, and be mildly insulting toward them?

As for this executive's original explanation, about it simply being a matter of unfortunate wording, that still doesn't alter the issue at hand here. I never accused Bill Hunt of taking bribes, my issue is all in perception. There is now a reasonable perception of impropriety. That is NOT saying there actually is something illegal or unethical going on, but adding to that the fact that Hunt contributes to an official Blu-ray site, I think it should give people pause.

The Digital Bits clearly states at the top of its page that it supports it supports Blu-ray, but nowhere on the site does it say the Hunt directly contributes to a Blu-ray site -- and maybe even gets paid for that service.

If you read a magazine like Entertainment Weekly, not exactly known as the pinnacle of journalism (no offense intended, I love the magazine), anytime there is a reference to ANYTHING associated with AOL-Time Warner (is that what it's still called), like a movie from that studio or something, EW lists that it is a part of that company. That's full disclosure. Readers should know from where this opinion or story is coming from.

Bill Hunt should take a lesson in that. Everytime he has an editorial praising Blu-ray, he should mention that he is a writing contributor. It should also be on his site where people could easily find it. If he does that, it would be a lot harder to question his reputation.

And as for people referring to movie advertisements on DVDTalk ... That is only applicable if you can prove that every movie that studios have advertisted on this site has gotten positive reviews, and we all know that isn't true.

This is a very murky area, one that I'm at least a little familiar with working at a newspaper. But we've had discussion at work about whether or not a reporter should have a political bumper sticker on their car, because that might show even some level of bias or conflict of interest.

So, while we at my workplace worry about even the slightest perception of bias, The Digital Bits gets a party paid for by a company they have openly supported. I know a newspaper is much different than The Digital Bits, but I think the concept still applies. Sure, the party might be nothing but innocent fun, but you need to look at it through others' eyes. If you do so with a level head, surely you can see how someone MIGHT perceive a conflict of interest.

The Third Jake

But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you've never used either in anything written in your official capacity as a physician. That's the difference. Having registered as "Fox Executive," he's posting here in that capacity.

Supposedly, of course. Which is what the point was.

bwvanh114

Good points. Damn, I so wanted that doughnut.

namja

Okay, and this thread is done.

namja
Moderator, DVD Talk Forums