[...] time the subject came up, at the beginning of the year, those who were in favor of explicitly disclosing review copies were [...]

[...] reviews.  @LostPhrack found the links and posted them on Twitter.  It started here and continued here.  When I first started reviewing, I thought it was proper to disclose if the manga was received [...]

“Marketing companies are keen to get their products into the hands of so-called influencers who have loyal online followings because the opinions of such consumers help products stand out amid the clutter, particularly in social media.

…

Mr. Cleland said that the F.T.C. would most likely not spell out the disclosure requirements but instead would rely on Internet users to judge what constitutes fair disclosure, adding that a lengthy description written in legalese would probably be counterproductive.”

Plus you get to see Ed Sizemore spew metaphorical milk through his nose…
How amateur. :) (last line was a joke)

“It’s that the information is available readily as common knowledge. Not having the information approaches willful ignorance.”

…and/or having been raised to focus on academics (easier to thrive in a family like that if you take ‘it’s not important if no teacher said it would be On The Test’ to heart)…

…and/or having an actual learning disability when it comes to information that isn’t explicitly cut-and-dry?

I’m not sure what you’d call the 4th category or how they got the way they they did, but they sure seem to think Johanna gets the books she talks about by being their author. Sadly, now I wonder, how many librarians reading review blogs notice that kind of comment too then include “comics don’t seem to help reading comprehension much, when you let your students choose which books to analyze in essays don’t always accept essays on comics” when middle school teachers and high school teachers ask them for advice?

At any rate, the fact that it’s common knowledge means that it’s not the reviewer’s problem. The fact that the disclaimer looks a bit odd to me personally, because I’m so used to reviews of non-comics, totally isn’t the reviewer’s problem either. ;) Johanna, feel free to add “(This review is based on a galley of the book provided by the publisher.)” at the end if you like to, but it shouldn’t be any more obligatory than adding “(This is a book review which means that it’s my opinion of the book and doesn’t mean I wrote the book itself.)” at the end. :)

“The information that reviewers at publication do not generally pay for the thing they review is common knowledge.”

In comics? Surely you jest.

I am sure there are people out there who are not aware that doctors have sample after sample after sample thrown at them by pharm reps. But I am also certain those people haven’t been paying attention.

Mainly because I wanted to be like a responsible reviewer. Like You.

[...] the Beat (am I understanding this correctly?).  But still, understandibly, Johanna presents the other side.  And it certainly is a damned if you due [...]

Here’s the thing: your own reasoning so far has simply been a list of reasons why it’s okay *not* to declare comps- reasons I have no problem with, I hasten to add- but not one single reason why it’s bad/unprofessional *to* declare them. You don’t like it, we get that. You don’t see why it’s necessary, we get that. But those are issues of taste, not professionalism, surely?

So I’m asking again, and maybe you’ll answer this time: why do you consider it unprofessional/amateaurish?

I have yet to see your answer to the point that readers WANT this information and have asked for it, but if you’re tired of the conversation already, that’s understandable. No forcing anyone into anything here.

Not bored, just not particularly interested in dissecting some weak, illogical and defensive reasoning from people I generally like. But if you want I’ll come back for another round.

If it makes no difference to you, why encourage the readers who think otherwise to believe they’re right? And readers of a trusted reviewer assume that even if the reviewer might have some preconceptions going in (because they can’t always be avoided), that reviewer is professional (sorry, that word again) enough to set aside those preconceptions and write an unbiased review.

Thomas R. Hart: Part of what’s come up in this discussion (more at The Beat than here) is that some people consider review copies of comics to already be payola themselves. Reviewers noting that they’ve received these copies just seem to have allowed this belief to have spread.

In the past I’ve seen a few bloggers give very positive reviews to work of friends and associates, and I’ve come to value transparency because of it. And hey, that friend’s work may be great and maybe I could be interested in it, but just be honest about the background of how that book got in your hands.

I think another element in all of this is that the public generally assumes professional print sources such as PW always get comp copies and the reviewer will be professional in the review. On the internet, any schmo with an agenda can put up a blog and type their hearts out, so that credibility is not readily apparent. To not get caught up in that storm, transparency is the best step in my eyes.