Originally Posted by
Pippinwhite
I've written my share of concert reviews for the newspaper. I didn't get any pay beyond my usual paycheck. I did get a media pass to the shows, which is standard procedure. However, it's understood with legitimate media outlets that a media pass doesn't guarantee a good review. A reporter writes it like he/she hears and sees it, whether good, not great or indifferent.
Of course, I've been to shows where I bought my own ticket and wrote a review for the paper, too. But when I did get a media pass, I was serious about doing an honest review, whether it was favorable or not.
It's the same process for book and movie reviews. Some promoters pay for a favorable review (some say Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is one who gets paid for it), but it's not uncommon to get the book or movie ticket for free. And I've written some absolutely scathing book reviews, even though I knew I got the book for free.
Most media outlets would consider a favorable review for pay to be a kind of payola. It's advertising masquerading as actual news. If it's disclosed in advance the person received some kind of financial compensation for the review, that's a little more honest, but most reputable media organizations would stay away from that. Even a freelancer who's paid by the outlet for their time to attend the show and write the review is expected to produce an honest review, favorable or otherwise.
Promoters paying for reviews presupposes that the review will praise the band. Why pay for it, otherwise? IMHO, it's a practice that starts slinking into shady territory.