Over the years I have been asked how I can remain objective despite constant conflicts of interest. The truth is that I can't--but that's OK.
Over the years I have been asked how I can remain objective despite constant conflicts of interest. For example, this site is sponsored by TI, ADI, and CEVA. Although I don't have anything to do with the ad sales (thank goodness!), the fact remains that I depend on these ads for my continued employment. Since that's the case, the critics ask, how can I give these companies objective coverage?
The honest answer is that I'm not completely objective. I do my best to be fair, but human beings are always biased. And it's not just money that causes bias. For example, I have good friends at some DSP companies, but I don't know a single person at other companies. I'm naturally inclined to give more coverage to companies where I have friends. It would be silly to pretend this isn't the case.
In my view, the point is not to strive for perfect objectivity. This is an impossible goal, and it offends me when media sources pretend to be objective. (I'm not alone in this. Fox News has generated enormous controversy by claiming to be "fair and balanced.")
Instead, I should focus on giving you the information you need. If a vendor makes outrageous claims, I should call them on it—even if I have to annoy an advertiser. If technology or business developments demand an analysis of this site's advertisers, I should give the fairest analysis I can—even if it means that an advertiser comes out as the "loser." And when bias is unavoidable—for example, in articles contributed by vendors—I should make the bias obvious so you know to take the author's views with a grain of salt.
Of course, my views are not as important as your views. After all, you are the one who decides how credible this site is. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how I am doing as an editor, and what I can do to make this site an even more credible, reliable resource. Shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org!