Reading mode: Light Dark

DPReview and journalistic integrity.

Go to last post
D Q E said:
DPReview is advertising supported. Don't expect journalistic
integrity (whatever that is - I worked for years in newspapers),
expect Phil to operate like anyone else deliberately frustrated -
he's going to throw his toys out of the pram.

DOes this do DPR or Olympus any good? Who knows, though it seems
unlikely.

DPR passed on reviewing the E-400 (a serious error, IMO) and have
been very slow to publish their E-510 review. Olympus may well feel
justified in feeling miffed, and thus prioritise less-critical sites
like Imaging Resource for review cameras.

--
--
mumbo jumbo
Click to expand...
I saw nothing in the preview on Imaging Resource that implied (or is that inferred?) that they "HAD" the camera, only that they were allowed to "Handle" it under supervision... Not a condition that contributes to the "Integrity" of the preview.
--
Larry

currently using:
E-1
Backing up with E-300 and E-500
and a Canon Rebel 350 D
 
Miss Sophie said:
If the quote "Frankly if Olympus carry on in the way they have for
the last month or so you'll be lucky to see a review here." is indeed
the official position of DPReview, I'm amazed.
Click to expand...
First off, how has Olympus been carrying on? No one has stated that yet.

Second, what's the justification of how Olympus has been carrying on (whatever it is)...does it have to do with the Amazon takeover of this site...maybe it's because of Phil breaking one of the cardinal rules and altering the image provided by Olympus (if you don't remember, Olympus only provided images with the grip attached, and Phil altered one to clone out the grip so you see the camera without it).

So, anyone know the WHOLE story?
 
I don't agree with the use of the word 'corruption' in the OP, but Sophie is absolutely right to call out Phil on the tit for tat implied in his message. Messages like that do not reflect well on his operation. Sure he gets beat up. But he has the experience to know if his words can be interpreted multiple ways, then they will be.

Maybe there's another side to the story of why Phil didn't get a preview camera from Olympus. Frankly, I don't care. Either Phil delivers the goods on the reviews or he doesn't. He needs the camera vendors, they need him. And they both need their audiences, which is us.

Personally, I found the preview on imaging-resource to be quite informative, with no drama attached.

Jeff
Miss Sophie said:
Louis_Dobson said:
been dealt with. The person who wrote the line, and therefore knows
better than anyone else what he meant, has just told you that you
misinterpreted it, as was obvious to most of us anyway, so that's the
end of that, unless you like arguing for the sake of it.

It wasn't your "point" I was talking about - it was the suggesting
that the ensuing argument was down to other people being aggressive
and argumentative, while you yourself were the bastion of sweetness,
light and reasonableness.

In fact you posted a hugely contentious accusation, and not
surprisingly started a huge argument. That was you that was, it
wasn't something that just happened.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jeff
 
Just from what I've gathered here and there since I dropped by this forum in spring, that there's a certain amount of animosity between dpreveiw and Olympus, which has been growing over time. Now I haven't heard the whole story, but I remember Phil griping he couldn't get a 510 to review either.

Don't know Oly's side, or how DPreview is being treated vs other reviewers, but if someone started complaining about treatment I thought was fair, I'd be -less- apt to give them better treatment.... but that's just me
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
 
1) You make a presumption that editors are neutral or should be neutral, a presumption that I find to be faulty.

2) You further make a presumption that if editors are not neutral, that they do not have "journalistic integrity." Again, I don't agree with that presumption.

I will point out that we, as readers, now have a better understanding of where Mr. Askey is coming from, which helps us, as readers, to place reviews and editorials in their proper context. This demonstrates far more integrity than keeping us in the dark and letting us presume that Mr. Askey is some non-human creature operating in a complete vacuum as to how camera companies game the system in their favor.

Moreover, you've made the implication that somehow Mr. Askey will alter the results of objective testing or somehow alter objective results, when such things are easily double-checked. I think he can certainly make editorial decisions--i.e. what cameras to review and which ones not to review--based on how he and his website are treated.

In other words, Mr. Askey is unlikely to review a company's cameras if they lie or mislead him or show extreme favoritism towards other sites that give positive reviews and ignore sites that may not give positive reviews. How is that failing to show integrity? If anything, we now have a better understanding of what companies (read: Olympus) will do to mislead consumers, and also, we have a better understanding of how Mr. Askey will stand up for his principles--certainly demonstrating far more integrity than Olympus, apparently.

In short, your post demonstrates faulty logic, based upon questionable premises, thus leading to an incorrect conclusion.

Anthony
Miss Sophie said:
To even hint that any editorial decision depends on how one is
treated by a manufacturer is undermining one's journalistic integrity.
Soph.
Click to expand...
--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com
 
Go steal one from one of the other review sites maybe? Grow up people, they promised him a camera, he set time aside to review it, and oly didnt send it.
 
I may be off topic but can someone tell me whats the point of a preview of a preproduction model?

A half decently informed individual can get more than enough info from the official page. Is that important to know what every knob or button does 2 weeks before a decent review will be available.

Thats why I think Phil's frustration is misplaced. I don't think dpr will lose hits because they aren't unable to provide a 'preview'.

But on the other hand a E-510 review should've been posted a few months back. That is a good enough reason for Olympus to feel reluctant about sending Phil a copy of the E-3.
 
Show me where I have implied that Mr Askey would "alter the results of objective testing or somehow alter objective results", please.

Your lecturing on editorial neutrality is touching. Of course I thought all editors were superhuman. You've shattered all my illusions.

In case it hasn't occurred to you: could it be the reasons for not being neutral that make a difference in whether one has integrity or not? One thing is not reviewing a camera because you think it is irrelevant and should be forgotten. Quite another is to not review a camera because you're miffed at the manufacturer for "carrying on" in some unspecified manner. Or?
Sophie.

I have questioned a quote that, if correct, to me indicates a tit for tat approach to which cameras get tested. Nothing more.
Anthony said:
2) You further make a presumption that if editors are not neutral,
that they do not have "journalistic integrity." Again, I don't agree
with that presumption.

I will point out that we, as readers, now have a better understanding
of where Mr. Askey is coming from, which helps us, as readers, to
place reviews and editorials in their proper context. This
demonstrates far more integrity than keeping us in the dark and
letting us presume that Mr. Askey is some non-human creature
operating in a complete vacuum as to how camera companies game the
system in their favor.

Moreover, you've made the implication that somehow Mr. Askey will
alter the results of objective testing or somehow alter objective
results, when such things are easily double-checked. I think he can
certainly make editorial decisions--i.e. what cameras to review and
which ones not to review--based on how he and his website are treated.

In other words, Mr. Askey is unlikely to review a company's cameras
if they lie or mislead him or show extreme favoritism towards other
sites that give positive reviews and ignore sites that may not give
positive reviews. How is that failing to show integrity? If
anything, we now have a better understanding of what companies (read:
Olympus) will do to mislead consumers, and also, we have a better
understanding of how Mr. Askey will stand up for his
principles--certainly demonstrating far more integrity than Olympus,
apparently.

In short, your post demonstrates faulty logic, based upon
questionable premises, thus leading to an incorrect conclusion.

Anthony
Miss Sophie said:
To even hint that any editorial decision depends on how one is
treated by a manufacturer is undermining one's journalistic integrity.
Soph.
Click to expand...
--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me Phil did have an E510 and then was told to hold back results because of an under-exposure issue with some of the test cameras. That and the near identical specs compared to the already reviewed E410 might have been the reason he chose to pass on a review of the E510?

Doug B
Torontowide.com
 
Lets see.
Your company has 5% of the DSLR market.

You have a golden opportunity to run your message, and have your newest product showcased, to the 95% of the sceptics and disbelievers out there on the world's largest and most relevant channel for reaching prospective DSLR consumers.
You pass on doing it.

Yeah, they'll be teaching this kind of decision-making in MBA courses in the future.

No matter what Phil's reviewing history is, Olympus should have been the one to rise above, or turn the other cheek.

Ninety-five percent of future DSLR buyers visiting this site could care less what Olympus has to offer. They had the opportunity to change people's minds, they blew it.

Doug B
Torontowide.com
 
Here you go:
Miss Sophie said:
Imboden said:
Review sites like this one test cameras supplied by manufacturers.
Phil Askey said Olympus told him they wouldn't be supplying an E-3.
So it stands to reason that DPreview won't review the E-3 if it has
no camera to test.

Save your rants about editorial integrity for a critique of Fox News.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Miss Sophie said:
DDeMars said:
First of all, I won't comment on Askey's attitude on this whole
thing. I do think, though, that your assertion, that you have made
several times in this thread, that camera reviewers are obliged to
buy every camera that they can't get from the manufacturer and review
it, is ridiculous. Reviewers are not obligated to buy and review
everything on the market, they aren't obliged to buy anything no
matter how many times you make that assertion. This is some
requirement you made up out of your own head. Do you think all of
these review sites on the web buy the equipment? If they are not
loaned a review model, they don't review it! You act like Askey is
implementing some unique policy in this regard.

But the thing that I find really surprising is: it looks as if it is
at least possible that Olympus is punishing bad reviews by not
providing review models, and that does not bother you? You don't
question the accuracy of the reviewers who get the review models?
Frankly, I'd be more suspicious of them than the guys who were being
"punished" by Olympus.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That sure sounds like you are stating that if they do not get a pre-production model that they should go buy it. Which is kinda odd because .. can you really buy a pre-production model? =p
--
http://tednghiem.smugmug.com . My smug for your mug.
 
Where do I mention anything about buying pre-production cameras? All I'm after is to demonstrate that the original quote indicated a tit for tat attitude which I found somewhat lacking in professionalism.
And, as I've said already, if DPReview need an E-3, they can borrow mine.
Sophie.
tengster said:
Miss Sophie said:
Imboden said:
Review sites like this one test cameras supplied by manufacturers.
Phil Askey said Olympus told him they wouldn't be supplying an E-3.
So it stands to reason that DPreview won't review the E-3 if it has
no camera to test.

Save your rants about editorial integrity for a critique of Fox News.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Miss Sophie said:
DDeMars said:
First of all, I won't comment on Askey's attitude on this whole
thing. I do think, though, that your assertion, that you have made
several times in this thread, that camera reviewers are obliged to
buy every camera that they can't get from the manufacturer and review
it, is ridiculous. Reviewers are not obligated to buy and review
everything on the market, they aren't obliged to buy anything no
matter how many times you make that assertion. This is some
requirement you made up out of your own head. Do you think all of
these review sites on the web buy the equipment? If they are not
loaned a review model, they don't review it! You act like Askey is
implementing some unique policy in this regard.

But the thing that I find really surprising is: it looks as if it is
at least possible that Olympus is punishing bad reviews by not
providing review models, and that does not bother you? You don't
question the accuracy of the reviewers who get the review models?
Frankly, I'd be more suspicious of them than the guys who were being
"punished" by Olympus.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That sure sounds like you are stating that if they do not get a
pre-production model that they should go buy it. Which is kinda odd
because .. can you really buy a pre-production model? =p
--
http://tednghiem.smugmug.com . My smug for your mug.
Click to expand...
 
Phil doesn't have to do anything.
Seems like he doesn't have to even review any cameras at the moment

(I know, he's moving and 1 half done P&S review of the Sony makes up for everything)

However I think he'll soon find that a lot of people wont read the reviews if they don't trust that he is completely impartial and unbiased!
(Guess that would mean less advertising $, wouldn't it)

--
Robert.

LZ2 7000pics & dropped; P880 (24-145/2.8-4.5) 2000pics & Stolen; GX1s - 18-55/3.5-5.6, 135/2.8, Zeiss (GDR) 50/2.8 Hope this one lasts!
21' 1600X1200@85Hz CRT, Core2Duo1.8GHz, 200Gb, 1Gb
 
If Phil had said that OLYMPUS will be lucky to see a review here, that would sound more like a threat. Saying that WE will be lucky to see a review here is less of a threat. There is still some ambiguity in the latter, however, and it was an unfortunate choice of words. But I don't think it was a genuine threat.
Miss Sophie said:
If the quote "Frankly if Olympus carry on in the way they have for
the last month or so you'll be lucky to see a review here." is indeed
the official position of DPReview, I'm amazed. It constitutes nothing
short of admitting to journalistic corruption.
Click to expand...
 
Just to clarify if anyone misunderstood what I meant was if they supply the production camera in the same way as the pre-production then I guess we'll never get one :)
Luke Kaven said:
Miss Sophie said:
If the quote "Frankly if Olympus carry on in the way they have for
the last month or so you'll be lucky to see a review here." is indeed
the official position of DPReview, I'm amazed. It constitutes nothing
short of admitting to journalistic corruption.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Phil Askey
Editor, dpreview.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top