[TenTec] ARRL Icom 7800 Review Published

[John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net>]

IMHO the quality of the text article accompanying the ARRL's lab findings 
in the QST reviews is highly dependent on the author of the text, rather 
than the result of any editorial bias. For example, a very good review of 
the original OMNI VI was done by Rus Healy, who has moved on to much more 
remunerative work. Also, a comprehensive review of the JRC JST-245, which 
was highly complimentary, nudged me to buy the rig and it turned out it was 
a good decision on my part.

I do not believe there is any intentional policy on the part of the editors 
to shade the text toward praise as opposed to criticism. But you're right, 
with one author's main rig a Paragon, and the second author's a 706 MKII G, 
and the third's a TS-930, you can expect huzzahs. But you also got Dave 
Heil, whose funds are not as limited when it comes to buying stuff.

Actually, I've thought some earlier QST reviews were excessively critical. 
Case in point: the review of the Argonaut V. The CQ review of the V was 
better, IMHO. Ditto the review of the Kenwood TS-870. So I think its is 
difficult to generalize. All in all, the most recent review effort 
regarding the IC-7800 seems to me to reflect a concerted effort by the QST 
editors to produce copy that would be helpful to its readers. I do not read 
anything more into the reviews than that.

With regard to the fact that QST is supported by advertising, recall that 
one of QST's principal  functions is to rally the troops for congressional 
action. What would we do without it?

Finally, I second Al Lorona's commendation of the major domo for this 
reflector, Mr. Jim Lowman. Most of my offerings seem to make it onto the 
reflector, and I'm sure the ones that end up on the cutting room floor 
deserve their fate :-)

73,
John, W3ULS

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec