On Sunday, talking heads circle tables and pontificate on television about the hottest topics pressing our nation. We bring that tradition to our site as the Graphic Policy team gives our thoughts in each week’s Sunday Roundtable.

On tap this week?

There’s much discussion about comic websites disclosing conflicts and increasing their transparency. What are your thoughts on the issue.

Daphne: It depends on my own reaction to whatever it is being reviewed, frankly – if I think something is absolutely awful and some review has a completely out-of-nowhere, universally positive review with no criticism or negative points to address, and then I find out the reviewer was given access to the comic (or game, or movie, or whatever) for free, I usually do have an “well, OF COURSE they pretended to like it” reaction. As long as reviewers are realistic, constructive, and critical in a reasonable way or can argue as to why they absolutely adored or completely hated something, I think it’s totally fine to accept things for free – but transparency is an important part of being professional as a reviewer.

Brett: Oh yeah, I’m not questioning whether it’s OK to accept stuff for free. We do! What is the obligation of that reviewer to make that known?

Alex: Absolutely.

Brett: Succinct. To the point. I like it.

Daphne: Seconded.

Alex: Ha, well, I think that the cost of a [reviewed product] can be prohibitive to some, and so when we’re reviewing those things we have a duty to get people know when we got them for free. Our opinions can be formed (when we get a review copy) purely on the merit of the comic without having to factor cost in.

I can think of several comics where I’ve encourage people to pick them up simply because of the cost (or lack there of) .

Mr. H: I think it’s very important because a reader could think that us receiving screener copies might influence how we review the comic or may play favoritism.

Mr. H: Transparency is usual a good policy imo.

Elana: People should always say if something was given for free. I think that it makes more of a difference the more value something has but there’s no reason not to disclose any price level.

Alex: I agree. Sometimes the cost of something as a customer is prohibitive. There have been a few occasions where my recommendation was Buy verses Read simply because of the cost, or lack there of.

Alex: How important do you guys feel that disclosure statements are when it comes to potential conflicts, reviews, and affiliate links?

Should they be included in both the article/post/column and on a website or just one or the other?

Brett: Depends what the conflict is. For a review, I think it should be stated at least at the bottom of the review, same with affiliate links. If a website is owned by a publisher, it absolutely should be every time they do anything involved with the parent company, and preferably also somewhere on the site itself.

When it doubt disclose, and it’s better to disclose too much than not enough.

Brett: How do folks like to see disclosures done?

Katherine: I think the way we’re doing it is just fine. Just a note on the bottom as to whether or not this was provided to us free of cost for review.

Daphne: I like to at least see them at the bottom of reviews below or following the overall scores given to the review subject. A simple “Marvel Comics flew Daphne to Los Angeles for the Captain Marvel premiere” works just fine.

Katherine: If only, Daphne.

Basically all this. Transparency is just good journalism. I don’t think getting a product free to review influences the review, or at least, it doesn’t for me. It *might* influence others, but I think any journalist worth their salt won’t really be swayed by it, and I think most people know that.

Also, I think it’s important to note that there’s a huge difference between getting material to review for free and getting paid to review it, and by stating that we received it for free lessens the view that the review might be biased.

Alex: Especially if we give a favourable review to a product without disclosing whether the product was free or not.

Disclosing something is never a bad thing if it alleviates the doubt as to a writers integrity.

Brett: So, I started the whole “free” thing because at the time a lot wasn’t and I thought there should be a distinction. Was I over thinking things?

Katherine: I don’t think so. I honestly doubt that many people pay attention to that kind of thing, and like what was said before, it’s better to be over transparent than under.

Alex: I agree with Katherine. More transparency with this kind of thing isn’t a bad thing

Brett: One last question. What do folks think about sites running ads for companies or comics they have to cover?

Alex: In theory, so long as disclosures are in place, it should be fine. That being said, the ads being set as the background to a site, rightly or wrongly, imply to me that a site endorses the product that’s being advertised. So when a favourable review of that product is written, I often equate the review as a piece of PR that won’t be worth reading.

Brett: And that’s a good place to wrap up! So, you the readers, what do you think? We throw it out to you our community. Sound off in the comments!