Michael Fremer Leaving Stereophile?

[fpitas]

You don't see many people as universally despised. The man worked hard at it.

 

[MattHooper]

@board , Fremer’s entire gear assessment process revolves around sighted listening, which allows his imagination to overrun anything potentially audible in the sound waves. So stop trying to find the reasons for his choices in the sound waves.

Suit yourself of course.

I know that writing anything positive about Fremer is akin to defending the devil on this forum but...

As I've said before, whenever I have listened to speakers Fremer has reviewed, I have found his reviews to have been quite perceptive and accurate in describing what I hear from those speakers. I've had the Audio Physic Virgo and Scorpio speakers in my room that Fremer reviewed and they sounded as he described.
And for instance in his review comparing the Scorpio speaker to other Audio Physic speakers he'd reviewed, his characterization of some salient differences (e.g. bass/treble character) tracked with the different measurements of those speakers quite well. (And what I heard from those speakers in terms of how they differed).

Similarly, I also found the same for the Joseph Audio and MBL speakers he has reviewed. His description of the Joseph Audio sound was just about exactly what I hear, and tracked well with the measurements. Likewise with the MBL 101E speakers he reviewed, and again his description of sonic differences compared with Rockport speakers he'd reviewed made sense in light of the measurements of both speakers (e.g. Fremer reporting the MBLs leaned toward the bright side, the Rockports the opposite).

In fact, when it comes to the MBL speakers I had become very interested in the MBL 101D/E speakers in the early 2000s. I'd first listened to them at a reviewer's place where they sounded incredible, almost flawless. Then I was able to audition them at a local dealer...not the greatest set up. And I found they were doing some of the same good things, but there was also a weird anomaly that was driving me crazy with some vocal tracks. I had no idea what was going on, but it was quite off-putting and soured me somewhat on the 101s for the moment. Later Fremer in his MBL 101E review reported:

"...101Es meant that it would take just the right combination of placement and associated equipment to achieve it—and I'd never before had to deal with an omnidirectional speaker. When everything—or anything—was wrong, there was an odd chesty, compressed, almost grainy midbass coloration, and a sense that female singers centered between the speakers were performing in a closet in the next room. The offending sound was probably due to an unusual combination of placement and reflective interference."

That description is just BANG ON to the artifact I heard with a number of vocal tracks on the MBLs! And it's something that doesn't necessarily just show up in the measurements per se (they were perhaps done in a different room and/or different mic placement than Fremer's listening position when he was hearing the anomaly?). So in my experience it was a perceptive catch as to what the speakers could sound like if set up sub-optimally.

However, as Fremer reported, once that was worked out with positioning, the MBLs sounded excellent and his description of the sound character was very accurate to what I heard both when I later auditioned the 101s in better set ups, and when I eventually owned MBL omnis myself.

I know, I know...never give an evil subjective reviewer, much less Fremer, any possible credit. But, for my purposes I can find his reviews perceptive.

 

[board]

You don't see many people as universally despised. The man worked hard at it.

Agreed. Although I think he gets some flak that isn't deserved, then he certainly gets a lot of flak that is truly deserved when he loudly spreads his lame hypotheses and stupid conspiracy theories, viciously attacks anyone who fact-checks him, and then proclaims himself to be a victim.
Although many other reviewers have just as ridiculous ideas as Fremer, then very few, if any, are as universally despised as him, as you say. Not without reason.

To go back to the beginning of the topic, I also considered going from The Absolute Sound to Stereophile as a step up in his career, so going back to The Absolute Sound seems like a step backwards. Hopefully, we will hear less of his abrasive tone in the future.
I might be completely mistaken about this, but I was under the impression that he was the one who started the site Arrogant Planet, which was then purchased by Stereophile (or maybe they owned it from the beginning, but he was the one who started it), so it also seems strange that he would leave his own site. His new site, Tracking Angle, doesn't seem to be of the same caliber at all, and at least at the moment it's not possible to make comments, which luckily minimizes the arguing, but probably makes the site less attractive to readers, as it's just him and a few others writing reviews that only few people read. But hopefully it will stay that way, and eventually Fremer will fade away and retire for good and move to Brazil where he will be forgotten by the rest of us.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, I know that . And like Galliardist also said, the price is super important to him - if it's too cheap he clearly writes a somewhat lazy, disinterested review.
My point was simply that things are not completely black and white, and I think Fremer's choices demonstrate that as well:
In some cases a high price makes him buy something; in other cases a certain visual appearance (design) makes him buy something; in other cases it's just a certain feeling about liking something for no explainable reason that makes him buy something; in other cases yet again it really is an audible difference, although it might be small. Unless he subjects himself to an ABX test (which he won't) we will never know for sure, but we can't rule out that there could be an audible difference in certain cases - and just to be clear, I think there are audible differences in some cases, but in most cases, especially with certain types of gear like cables, etc., his preferences are either imagined or based on non-audible factors such as a visually pleasing design, the price tag, or just liking or disliking something for one reason or another.
Price alone cannot be the determing factor, because then he would have bought new equipment every time he reviews something more expensive than he already has, and he has reviewed plenty of amps, speakers and turntables that were more expensive than what he already had, and yet he didn't buy them. He has also reviewed gear that almost all of us, including him, would agree has a more pleasing visual appearance than what he already owns. I don't think he really, truly thinks that his Dartzeel amps and Wilson Speakers have had the nicest visual design of any products he has ever tested.
Lastly, he gave e.g. a Boulder phono preamp a rave review and yet didn't buy it. It was certainly expensive enough for him to buy it ($40,000). He also gave a rave review to a $350,000 amplifier and yet didn't buy it. And the list continues like that with other super expensive amps, speakers, turntables, cables, etc. that he gave rave reviews, yet didn't buy and instead bought other super expensive products.
My point is simply that it is possible that the explanation to why he bought product A and not product B is entirely because of non-audible factors, but it's also possible that at least some of his choices really do come down to audible factors, such as a certain cartridge, amplifier, phono preamp or speaker has a non-flat frequency response that he likes.
Despite how obnoxious, arrogant, conceited and foul-mouthed I find him, I think he's a more honest person than certain people give him credit for, meaning when he likes, dislikes or is indifferent about a certain product he's rarely lying about it.
I think what people just can't understand is how he could possibly have the opinions and preferences that he does, and then they start to theorize about him being a liar or being on the take, etc., when in fact he just has different preferences, and he's extremely vocal about trying to justify those preferences with lame, loud arguments, when in fact it's simply an emotional reason to why he likes something (and that emotional reason might be caused by a certain non-flat frequency response pleasing him more than a flat frequency response), and he should really just say "I simply prefer A to B".

I can understand why anyone here will dismiss a subjective reviewer especially if that reviewer has written nonsense, such as the wonderful differences between AC cables or likely undetectable differences between amps etc.

My view is that I don't write off someone for being able to imagine things. As we know, EVERYONE is susceptible to various types of bias, which is why blind testing is a thing. And yet it would be over-reaching to conclude that, from the fact anyone can experience bias effects and imagine things, therefore no one can be a perceptive listener with respect to real sonic differences. So, being susceptible to bias effects" and nonetheless having "good ears" for real sonic differences are not mutually exclusive.

That's why I can note that a reviewer may go in for some audiophile woo-woo, yet still have described real sonic characteristics in speakers quite accurately.
So I don't care that much if the reviewer has reviewed some cables or whatever; if I find his sonic descriptions accurate and perceptive for speakers I've had experience with, then I may pay attention to what he has to say about other speakers too.

I've been to some reviewers places who were TOTALLY down the woo-woo rabbit hole with respect to cables, tweaks etc, yet whose description of their how their speakers sound was accurate. I heard some mind-blowing sound from some of the speakers they had chosen as a reference.

 

[board]

I can understand why anyone here will dismiss a subjective reviewer especially if that reviewer has written nonsense, such as the wonderful differences between AC cables or likely undetectable differences between amps etc.

My view is that I don't write off someone for being able to imagine things. As we know, EVERYONE is susceptible to various types of bias, which is why blind testing is a thing. And yet it would be over-reaching to conclude that, from the fact anyone can experience bias effects and imagine things, therefore no one can be a perceptive listener with respect to real sonic differences. So, being susceptible to bias effects" and nonetheless having "good ears" for real sonic differences are not mutually exclusive.

That's why I can note that a reviewer may go in for some audiophile woo-woo, yet still have described real sonic characteristics in speakers quite accurately.
So I don't care that much if the reviewer has reviewed some cables or whatever; if I find his sonic descriptions accurate and perceptive for speakers I've had experience with, then I may pay attention to what he has to say about other speakers too.

I've been to some reviewers places who were TOTALLY down the woo-woo rabbit hole with respect to cables, tweaks etc, yet whose description of their how their speakers sound was accurate. I heard some mind-blowing sound from some of the speakers they had chosen as a reference.

I think I pretty much agree with everything or at least most of what you wrote, at least as far as "we're all susceptible to bias and therefore this doesn't disqualify us from being able to say sensible things in other areas".
Writing people off for bias would be no more than a simple ad hominem, although I think we all would agree that there's a certain line that you can't cross. If you say something completely ridiculous then it's difficult to take that person seriously on anything ever again.

Anyway, I think the most important thing is to be able to admit that we're all suspectible to bias, and the reason Fremer has become so despised is because he is never willing to admit that his mind could be playing tricks on him - he's convinced that he's always completely right about anything he believes he has heard/felt. I've seen him correct himself if he relayed
Like I said in my post above, to a dramatic person who mainly perceives the world through feelings rather than images and sounds their feelings equal facts to them, even, or perhaps more so especially, when they're incorrect, meaning when they've made incorrect assumptions (such as "digitization audibly changes the sound dramatically", just to give one example). All the dramatic people I've encountered, including Fremer, have seemed to employ the most militant defence to the assumptions they're the most factually wrong about.

And yes, I also think Fremer can be quite good at describing how a component sounds, although often it's relatively easy to tell whether he really likes it or not, because if it's just "this is how it sounds" then he's indifferent, whereas when it's "this is the greatest thing I've ever heard, rave, rave, rave" then he truly likes it. The same thing for record reviews on Arrogant Planet. If they score 8 or 9 he doesn't care much, and it essentially means "it's acceptable", and 7 means unacceptable, although it should really mean "good".

 

[krabapple]

If you're Framer, Stanley Lipshitz is on your hate list.

All the more reason to honor Lipshitz.

Yes, I know that . And like Galliardist also said, the price is super important to him - if it's too cheap he clearly writes a somewhat lazy, disinterested review.
My point was simply that things are not completely black and white, and I think Fremer's choices demonstrate that as well:
In some cases ......;in other cases .... in other cases.........in some cases.... in most cases,....

In no case does it matter, except to further discredit him as an authority on sound.

tl;dr : Who cares?

 

[MattHooper]

I think I pretty much agree with everything or at least most of what you wrote, at least as far as "we're all susceptible to bias and therefore this doesn't disqualify us from being able to say sensible things in other areas".
Writing people off for bias would be no more than a simple ad hominem, although I think we all would agree that there's a certain line that you can't cross. If you say something completely ridiculous then it's difficult to take that person seriously on anything ever again.

Anyway, I think the most important thing is to be able to admit that we're all suspectible to bias, and the reason Fremer has become so despised is because he is never willing to admit that his mind could be playing tricks on him - he's convinced that he's always completely right about anything he believes he has heard/felt. I've seen him correct himself if he relayed
Like I said in my post above, to a dramatic person who mainly perceives the world through feelings rather than images and sounds their feelings equal facts to them, even, or perhaps more so especially, when they're incorrect, meaning when they've made incorrect assumptions (such as "digitization audibly changes the sound dramatically", just to give one example). All the dramatic people I've encountered, including Fremer, have seemed to employ the most militant defence to the assumptions they're the most factually wrong about.

And yes, I also think Fremer can be quite good at describing how a component sounds, although often it's relatively easy to tell whether he really likes it or not, because if it's just "this is how it sounds" then he's indifferent, whereas when it's "this is the greatest thing I've ever heard, rave, rave, rave" then he truly likes it. The same thing for record reviews on Arrogant Planet. If they score 8 or 9 he doesn't care much, and it essentially means "it's acceptable", and 7 means unacceptable, although it should really mean "good".

Agreed, not hard to understand the animus towards Fremer. Aside from exhibiting an imperious Golden Ears attitude, he can be very obnoxious and caustic.
In fact I've been on the recieiving end of one of his insult tirades (comment section).

 

[board]

In no case does it matter, except to further discredit him as an authority on sound.

Yes, but the point was simply that we can't just say that it's all imagined. Some components may have audible differences - we can't just assume that they don't, just like we can't assume that they do. It's bias to assume that they all do, and it's bias to assume that none of them do.

 

[ahofer]

I’m sure he’s sincere in his beliefs. As I suggested in another post, that’s just rationalizing what he wants to believe. The tell is his unwillingness to test it properly.

Now have at this: https://www.analogplanet.com/content/its-just-wire-1

 

[anmpr1]

My view is that I don't write off someone for being able to imagine things.

Folks live in imagination, some longer than others. It's just the way it is. Yet I don't think it is fair to call 'subjective' experience 'imagination'. At least strictly speaking, if by that we mean conscious and self-directed daydreaming. What these folks tell us is surely real for them. Here's the thing (and I'm going to half-way 'defend' Fremer, which is kind of strange for me...):

Let's say a guy buys a record player (or any piece of gear), and it costs twice as much as a high performance Italian or Japanese motorcycle (I always use that analogy by way of comparison, simply to keep technology, personal enthusiasm, enjoyment, excitement, pride of ownership, and bang for the buck, in some kind of consumer-oriented dollar denominated perspective).

And let us say his purchase 'helps' him enjoy his records more. On a personal or individual level, who can argue against that? He feels good about it, and is happy. After all, we need more happiness in the world. For the hi-fi enthusiast you could even say that it's a net plus for everyone--consumer, retailer, and manufacturer (as long as they can afford it and don't go into too much debt over it, which is probably not a good thing, objectively).

I am not against any of that.

What I am against, however, is someone who does all that, but then attempts to convince others they too 'need' to do the same, or something similar, if they expect to experience a commensurate sonic revelation. And then to justify it, they start offering goofy and idiotic arguments in support for it. At that point what was a 'legitimate' individual value oriented thing becomes more a 'cult' thing.

Someone who does that (and Fremer does it, although, again, I don't want to single him out), is completely out of bounds. Someone like that should be avoided. Or at least investigated carefully. The easy thing is to say how people like that are deluded. Yet delusion at the personal (individual) level is not a general problem. Especially someone with an 'audiophile' delusion--that probably doesn't ever hurt anyone. However, when such a person starts writing for a 'magazine' (or other on-line presence) in an attempt to influence others, it elevates what was once a personal 'opinion' to something altogether different. It now becomes a social (ethical) concern.

In this case, one must necessarily ask questions. One ought to ask: Is this influencer getting paid for their opinion, even if it is an in-kind payment (or a long-term loan)? And how does their reimbursement (to include free stuff) affect their opinions? Payment always makes opinions problematic. Why? Because for a consumer reading at a distance, the line between honesty and opportunism is blurred and cannot easily be determined. Also, the influencer, regardless of his honesty and intentions, becomes in essence part of an advertisement for the product.

I don't know Fremer's monetary reimbursement (I doubt any audio related influencer is making much by way of ready cash). Fremer admits, however, that he is paid in-kind. He admits that he receives a bunch of free records. He admits he is able to purchase (and has purchased) gear at a substantial discount not available to regular consumers. And we know he gets gear to play with, long term.

Again, I don't want to single him out but he is representative of a type, and he is well-known, and he is the topic of the thread.

I am not against Fremer (or his ilk) because he says out loud and in print that he hears what he hears. I don't care about that. And I believe him when he says he experiences whatever he describes (although I don't believe he 'hears' it, strictly speaking--it's more a psychological 'gestalt' he is relating in words, along with reification projected on to expensive hardware).

And I am not really against him for his out of control, over the top outbursts. That's certainly unfortunate both for him and for anyone on the receiving end, and is certainly a sign of an unstable personality. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It may simply be something requiring medication adjustment. In any case (and as far as I know) he's been emotionally quiescent over the past few years, in print. Good for him.

I am against him and what he stands for because he is a paid influencer. To me, what he does (and others like him) is slimy. Am I unkind? Once one becomes an influencer, then public comment for and against goes with the territory.

To wrap, I suspect that Michael is wholly sincere. My guess is that he is a true believer. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that the owners of Stereophile (and that magazine's counterparts) see it as anything more than an opportunity to make some fast dollars off naive consumers. Certain manufacturers who go along with this thing? I hold them in even lower contempt.

 

[Multicore]

I read the subject of this post and thought, Who?

Then I read the first two replies and thought, Right!

Then I saw there are 35 pages of replies on the thread and thought, WAT?!

 

[Newman]

If you say something completely ridiculous then it's difficult to take that person seriously on anything ever again.

Fremer (paraphrased but extremely close to verbatim): "I have never heard any music that is digital that doesn't give me a headache after just a few minutes."

[edit: I found his actual words: “I cannot stand listening to CDs for more than a few minutes. I can listen to and be engaged in music from vinyl for hours on end. At the end of the listening session I am refreshed. After a few minutes of CD listening, I become irritated and unhappy and definitely not relaxed.” Apologies for misremembering “CD” as “digital” and “irritated and unhappy and definitely not relaxed“ as “a headache”. But I got the intent.]

 

[ahofer]

Fremer (paraphrased but extremely close to verbatim): "I have never heard any music that is digital that doesn't give me a headache after just a few minutes."

That he knew was digital

 

[board]

I’m sure he’s sincere in his beliefs. As I suggested in another post, that’s just rationalizing what he wants to believe. The tell is his unwillingness to test it properly.

Exactly. He, like everyone else, should be willing to have his hypotheses tested, like your signature says.
Some will see his unwillingness as a tacit admission that he on some level knows that he might be imagining things, but I actually don't think that is the case. I think he's really, truly convinced that somehow ABX tests are unreliable and/or that the people who want to test him are really, truly evil and immoral and are only out to get him and will do anything to discredit him and ruin his reputation as the greatest reviewer in history.
Granted, the way the tone is in the audio debate I understand him to some extent, because there are surely no shortage of objectivists who use a harsh tone against him and other subjectivists, but much of it is still only in Fremer's mind. Like mentioned earlier, he really is like a dramatic woman, always being paranoid and blaming everyone else for all the drama that he started.
There are, however, also calm and reasonable people, like Brent Butterworth, who Fremer knew personally and had been on friendly terms with for years, who has asked him nicely to back up his claims, and Fremer's response was to call him "transparently full of shit", if I remember correctly (I couldn't find the site now). I also proposed a test to Fremer and could never get a proper response to a simple yes/no question - just like with a dramatic woman.
So ...

 

[board]

That he knew was digital

"But wait! I always thought the Mofi records sounded a bit off. I just knew that there was ... something."

On a slightly different note: He gave Anthony Wilson's album "Songs and Photographs" 11 out of 10 on Arrogant Planet, despite knowing that it was cut from digital, but as I then had to point out in the comments it was actually cut from 44.1 kHz and not hi-res as Fremer had assumed.

 

[board]

Folks live in imagination, some longer than others. It's just the way it is. Yet I don't think it is fair to call 'subjective' experience 'imagination'. At least strictly speaking, if by that we mean conscious and self-directed daydreaming. What these folks tell us is surely real for them. Here's the thing (and I'm going to half-way 'defend' Fremer, which is kind of strange for me...):

Let's say a guy buys a record player (or any piece of gear), and it costs twice as much as a high performance Italian or Japanese motorcycle (I always use that analogy by way of comparison, simply to keep technology, personal enthusiasm, enjoyment, excitement, pride of ownership, and bang for the buck, in some kind of consumer-oriented dollar denominated perspective).

And let us say his purchase 'helps' him enjoy his records more. On a personal or individual level, who can argue against that? He feels good about it, and is happy. After all, we need more happiness in the world. For the hi-fi enthusiast you could even say that it's a net plus for everyone--consumer, retailer, and manufacturer (as long as they can afford it and don't go into too much debt over it, which is probably not a good thing, objectively).

I am not against any of that.

What I am against, however, is someone who does all that, but then attempts to convince others they too 'need' to do the same, or something similar, if they expect to experience a commensurate sonic revelation. And then to justify it, they start offering goofy and idiotic arguments in support for it. At that point what was a 'legitimate' individual value oriented thing becomes more a 'cult' thing.

Precisely! Not only does Fremer stubbornly insist that hyper expensive gear is necessary, but he also frequently insists that he won't take anyone else's comments seriously if they don't own the "right" gear.
And not only that - he essentially always seems to insist that when he buys hyper expensive gear it is not because he enjoys the luxury of high priced gear but because it is better. And he almost always speaks in statement form in that way, better, better, better, as if he was relaying a factual matter, rather than simply say "I simply prefer ...". If he could just avoid almost always speaking in statement form, and scream, then he would be involved in many fewer arguments. But that's how he is, and he'll never change. I've learnt that much about human beings.

 

[board]

Fremer (paraphrased but extremely close to verbatim): "I have never heard any music that is digital that doesn't give me a headache after just a few minutes."

[edit: I found his actual words: “I cannot stand listening to CDs for more than a few minutes. I can listen to and be engaged in music from vinyl for hours on end. At the end of the listening session I am refreshed. After a few minutes of CD listening, I become irritated and unhappy and definitely not relaxed.” Apologies for misremembering “CD” as “digital” and “irritated and unhappy and definitely not relaxed“ as “a headache”. But I got the intent.]

And in the same comment he wrote this:

"If "science" claims measurements prove CD is transparent to the original source, then the science is wrong."

Also, in the article text he wrote:

"Just as I was about to post this story I was sent a link to a story by former New York Times tech editor David Pogue who's posted yet another anti-PONO, anti-high resolution digital audio story that's based on an absurd "experiment" using a Radio Shack switch box and unsuspecting test subjects.

I wrote Pogue and told him:

You haven’t a clue David. You not only don’t have clothes, you haven’t a brain."

And then Fremer doesn't understand why he has been called (on other occassions) "a digital hater" or a "CD hater" and why someone on Youtube suggested him to rename his site "Arrogant Planet" .

 

[DMill]

Fremer is not dumb. And he’s probably heard more audio gear than most. He’s a decent writer for audio and he has a following. It’s his thing to make you want to hate him. $100k turntable… who can do that? He’s just trying to bust balls and based on posts he’s doing it. I’m ok with his musings on insane stuff. But I’d love to pin him down in a blind test one day and see if he can hear any difference. My guess is he can’t. But the dude claims to be able to hear cables… LMAO

 

[noiseangel]

One in 3 adults over age 65 has hearing loss. Because of the gradual change in hearing, some people are not aware of the change at first. Most often, it affects the ability to hear high-pitched noises such as a phone ringing or beeping of a microwave. The ability to hear low-pitched noises is usually not affected.

Lucky for him at 75 he can still hear when he has a shart.

 

[MattHooper]

In this case, one must necessarily ask questions. One ought to ask: Is this influencer getting paid for their opinion, even if it is an in-kind payment (or a long-term loan)? And how does their reimbursement (to include free stuff) affect their opinions? Payment always makes opinions problematic. Why? Because for a consumer reading at a distance, the line between honesty and opportunism is blurred and cannot easily be determined. Also, the influencer, regardless of his honesty and intentions, becomes in essence part of an advertisement for the product.

Well you could say much the same thing for almost anyone who is paid for their gig, including of course journalists for any particular news outlet etc. It's always incumbent on a reader/consumer to have his critical thinking cap on and not just swallow everything any writer says, to have some due diligence. So I don't see why Fremer or "someone like Fremer" (audio writer?) would be singled out that way.

As I've said, I try to have my critical thinking cap on when reading Fremer or any other audio writer - "objectivist" or "subjectivist." I don't just presume everything he writes is true. But I can correlate what he's writing with my own experience, to have a sense as to whether he's likely on to something or not.
I also don't just swallow whole everything Amir writes in reviews or elsewhere either. The fact Amir is not paid and Fremer is, is in that sense neither here nor there, if one is approaching the information critically...and, again, that's on the reader consumer.

It doesn't mean any writer should be excused for KNOWINGLY writing false information. But, as I understand it, that's not what we are talking about, as you've granted Fremer may believe what he writes.

I am against him and what he stands for because he is a paid influencer. To me, what he does (and others like him) is slimy. Am I unkind? Once one becomes an influencer, then public comment for and against goes with the territory.

I don't quite get the move from "I accept that Fremer believes what he writes" to "what he does is slimy." To me the pejorative "slimy" connotes a person who is doing something he knows to be wrong. But if Fremer believes deeply in what he writes...how is that "slimy?" Misguided, sure, but "slimy?" That doesn't make as much sense to me. For instance I happen to think religions are false. I don't think someone who deeply believes in their religion, or even makes an occupation out of writing about it for an audience, is "slimy" just because they are paid and may influence people with their writing.