The ART of ethics

Or “What is Alex Reviews Tech’s Ethics Policy anyway?”

If you’ve been reading any of my reviews on this site (or watching them over on the ART YouTube channel) you may have noticed rather prominent ethical disclosure notices before most reviews, noting if a product has been sent to me free of charge or if it’s not being asked for back after the review is done.

Indeed, I’m writing this at least in part because the last bit of writing I did for the site was a small update to my Galaxy S25 Ultra review, noting that Samsung Australia has loaned me a unit long term for comparative and review purposes, and that’s something I feel needs disclosure and, for that matter, transparency.

Why?

Frankly, because there’s a lot of distrust of journalists and especially online tech and gaming journalists.

“We’re all in it for the freebies” kind of thinking, and I know where that’s coming from, because equally frankly, I’ve seen some behaviour and entitlement tantrums from more than a few tech journalists and influencers over the years that have made my jaw drop… but Australian defamation law is a real thing, so I’m not going to name names here.

The problem with that is that it’s then all too easy and understandable to think that anyone doing this kind of work is only doing so for ethically compromised reasons, and as such they’re also going to be very easy to manipulate in the interests of tech companies rather than their readerships or viewerships.

Again, the stories I could tell… if I could afford some really high priced lawyers.

Instead, I want to be upfront about anything that might have the appearance of any kind of ethical conflict of interest in every case.

I’m well aware that there’s a bit of a normalised state of affairs to more simply disclose some of those details at the end of articles – your typical “Journalist X travelled to Event Y as a guest of Company Y” kind of play – but I’m not personally convinced that this is enough, especially as a reader may not get to the end of an article or video in any case.

Hence the upfront disclosures.

To be absolutely clear here, around 95% of everything I review is loaned to me, about 4% of it is purchased by me, and the remaining 1% are sent to me without expectation of their return (though this isn’t always clear to me while reviewing; for an example of that see the disclaimer currently on my Roborock F25 review) because that’s a product where I don’t know if it’s going back or not at the time of writing.

So in short, if you don’t see a disclosure, that’s definitely a product going back; if you do then I’m doing so to make it entirely clear that either way it has no effect on my writing or critical reviewing process here at Alex Reviews Tech. It’s true in either case, because that is (or should be) the foundation of good ethical journalism. Journalism should serve those who read or view it, not to toady favour (or even end up in a situation where it appears you’re toadying favour) with big businesses.

I wish there was more of this kind of thing to make it clear who the good and bad actors in this industry are – but all I can do is what I can publish here.

Update: Also, because it comes up from time to time, no, I don’t sell products that stay with me; they’re used for comparative purposes down the track and then e-waste recycled if they no longer function or in some cases donated to charities where suitable if not. Selling them on would create its own ethical issues, because then I could be seen to be hyping up a product in order to sell my own one of it, or accepting it from a company instead of cash. Not doing that either.

Also, if you’ve reached this far, I’m still doing this in a predominantly reader/viewer supported way. Creating good ethical content takes serious time, and if you feel like what I do has value, please consider becoming a sponsor of the site; you can click here to find out how.

End of rant. Coffee time.