Re: Julian Hirsch; The Godfather of Reviewing Art

<< 
> How on earth does that make any sense? If a magazine withholds bad reviews on
> products they deem bad they are doing the public  a huge disservice. Are we
> supposed to assume that all products not reviewed are bad because a bad
review
> may have been withheld? It makes no sense at all to me.

I don't follow your logic.  Why would you assume that all products not
reviewed or bad? 

You shouldn't. The logic is simple we cannot assume that no review means a bad
review withheld. So withholding reviews simply because they are bad is a
disservice to the readers. It is a disservice because potentially valuable
information is being withheld. Take it to an extreme. Should the reports that
Pintos would explode when rear-ended not have been published since it was
negetive? Obviously this is an extreme but the idea is the same. 

There are so many products that no magazine could
review them all.  I don't see that many really negative reviews in any
of the magazines anymore anyway.

So?

  Frankly, I don't think a magazine
(especially when it contains subjective reviews) could survive with
really negative reviews.  Just post a bad review of anything (Bose may
be an exception but even THEY have their supporters) and see the
flames rise in the air.

Magazines have, in the past, survived despite printing some negative reviews.

 >><BR><BR>