Honour and dishonour...

[fajrdrako]

From November 20, 2008:

I receive a lot of review books, but I have never once told lies about the book just because I got a free copy of it. However, some authors seem to feel that if they send you a copy of their book for free, you should give it a positive review.

Do you think reviewers are obligated to put up a good review of a book, even if they don’t like it? Have we come to a point where reviewers *need* to put up disclaimers to (hopefully) save themselves from being harassed by unhappy authors who get negative reviews?

I find the question itself to be appalling. It is never acceptible to lie. To lie in print is to put yourself on record as a liar forever. To lie about whether you liked a book simply in order to get free copies of something you don't like is intellectual dishonesty of the lowest sort. Whoring. And for an author to expect you to lie for their sake - well, there are words for that, too, but whatever words you might use, this destroys any possible belief in the integrity or maturity of their writing.

Do the words 'journalistic integrity' have no meaning at all?

Any review is only as good as the honesty behind it.