DPReview and journalistic integrity.

[Miss Sophie]

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. Credibility is everything in journalism. Once you undermine yours in the way the above quote does, you are no longer credible.

It is true that camera manufacturers do all they can to influence the media. That's their job. But once the media, in this case DPReview, start letting the way they are treated by those manufacturers influence their editorial judgement, they are on a slippery slope. If not getting a camera to preview is enough to change DPReviews editorial judgement, what happens if a manufacturer tries to manipulate coverage through increasing or decreasing advertising on the site? A credible editor should of course be able to categorically deny ever being influenced by camera manufacturers. If the above quote is correct, that credibility is unfortunately lost, and we as readers of the material on this site are left to wonder who actually controls the information here, and for what reasons.
Sophie.

 

[gbbiv]

Don't know if I read all that into the quote... he didn't say he'd give a bad review just no review... he doesn't review all cameras.

The point is that Oly doesn't seem to be holding to their promises... if they don't hold up their end of the bargain Phil isn't "required" to do anything.

--

 

[rmx]

no text.

 

[Imboden]

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.

 

[zakk9]

That kind of grumpy comment seems to be the style here. I seem to remember that there were similar comments with regards to Canon recently.

But don't take anything for granted. dpreview din not review the C5060, the C7070 or the E-400, all of them interesting cameras. And having lived with an E-1 for a year now, I think it's fair to say that the review of that camera missed the target with considerable margin.

Maybe we're better off without a review from this establishment after all.

--
Jorgen, my name is Jorgen

 

[Zalllon]

If he chooses to not test the camera, then I don't see what that his to do with integrity as I would base integrity on credibility.

However, if you want to question integrity, how many tested cameras have been Recommended or Highly Recommended? What percentage of cameras have not been recommended by dpreview?

----------------
Zalllon
'If you knew you wouldn't fail, what would you try?' - someone

 

[Miss Sophie]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25235643

no text.

 

[Miss Sophie]

Journalists aren't supposed to "bargain" with the their subjects. They're supposed to report the news.
Soph.

Don't know if I read all that into the quote... he didn't say he'd
give a bad review just no review... he doesn't review all cameras.

The point is that Oly doesn't seem to be holding to their promises...
if they don't hold up their end of the bargain Phil isn't "required"
to do anything.

--

 

[Miss Sophie]

To even hint that any editorial decision depends on how one is treated by a manufacturer is undermining one's journalistic integrity.
Soph.

If he chooses to not test the camera, then I don't see what that his
to do with integrity as I would base integrity on credibility.

However, if you want to question integrity, how many tested cameras
have been Recommended or Highly Recommended? What percentage of
cameras have not been recommended by dpreview?

----------------
Zalllon
'If you knew you wouldn't fail, what would you try?' - someone

 

[Steve Bingham]

A Nikon user. Puzzled. It looks like one hell of a camera!
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

 

[dr jim]

Agreed. As much as I have respected Phil in the past, the tenor of his comment was,"if they won't play fair, I'll take my ball and go home!"

 

[Bruce Spell]

The point is that Oly doesn't seem to be holding to their promises...
if they don't hold up their end of the bargain Phil isn't "required"
to do anything.

I don't KNOW the facts (as probably most don't) but please point me to where Olympus promised Phil anything with respect to an E-3 preview or review.
--
Bruce

 

[jon_k]

I was at a local camera store here when an Olympus rep was showing the E-410 and E-510 off. (Great cameras, I want one soon.)

Anyways I did in passing with the rep on no review for the E-400 on "that dpreview website" The Olympus rep said they did send one to dpreview for review but they never saw a review made.

Could this be why Olympus did not send the E-3 over? I mean if your giving a review site a FREE camera, I'd expect a review to come up. If you're simply taking cameras from manufacturers and not writing reviews... I'd stop sending you cameras too. For all I know you're eBaying them for profit!

That is probably the real reason they passed him up for review. They've sent him too many cameras for free without an article. No way they'll send a high dollar item like the E-3 and risk nothing coming out of it.

The whole "phil is moving! HOW CAN HE REVIEW" doesn't pass as has been mentioned before because the E-400 was announced in 2006.

Wonder what dpreview / phil did with that E-400. I wish I got cameras for free, but as we find out, if you take and don't write reviews, they don't send them that often after that.

 

[erichK]

When I was a young, naive kid, I read magazine reviews of shiny toys like cameras and stereo equipment religiously. But I became mystified why really wonderful cameras, like an uncles M4 that I occasionally got to use, hardly ever appeared. Slowly, it dawned on me that their real purpose was to lure consumers into buying those things, and that durable classics like the M4 were a very small and skeptical market.

There are exceptions, but in most cases, reviewers will mainly --and usually mildly--- pan a product, or review a product from a non-advertiser., from time to time, to maintain credibility. In the main reviews are another advertising and sales tool, and magazines and websites, including DPReview receive commercial support, for that reason.

This is why an honest user report is often worth more than a commercial "review".

---
erichK
saskatoon, canada
A beginning at posting some of my photos:

http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3

http://erichk.zenfolio.com/

 

[Miss Sophie]

How DPReview gets access to cameras to test has nothing to do with anything. If you don't get it from the manufacturer, you go out and buy one. The idea is to report the news, period.
Soph.

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.

 

[James A Rinner]

--
Sincerely,

James A. Rinner

 

[SteveM7i]

Read this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25235554

If Olympus wants to shoot itself in the foot, then you can't criticize Phil for letting it do so. Whatever the reasons, Oly seems to have divorced itself from DPReview. I just noticed that on Oly America's 's E-510 web page, the banner making note of DPReview's "Highly Recommended" rating has been replaced with links to Imaging Resource's tests and video. IMO, IR is an inferior website, but that's a topic for another thread.

DPReview will remain the Internet's premier digital photography website with or without Olympus' cooperation. At some point, Amazon.com may provide Phil with an E-3 to review and he may very well give it a "Recommended Rating". If so, it won't be because he's biased against Olympus.

Steve

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. Credibility is
everything in journalism. Once you undermine yours in the way the
above quote does, you are no longer credible.
It is true that camera manufacturers do all they can to influence the
media. That's their job. But once the media, in this case DPReview,
start letting the way they are treated by those manufacturers
influence their editorial judgement, they are on a slippery slope. If
not getting a camera to preview is enough to change DPReviews
editorial judgement, what happens if a manufacturer tries to
manipulate coverage through increasing or decreasing advertising on
the site? A credible editor should of course be able to categorically
deny ever being influenced by camera manufacturers. If the above
quote is correct, that credibility is unfortunately lost, and we as
readers of the material on this site are left to wonder who actually
controls the information here, and for what reasons.
Sophie.

 

[binky]

Thank you Ms Sophie

I wonder how long Amazon will let DPRl get away being on the outs with OLY
you better make nice ---- it could cost Amazon money
thanks again Ms Sophie very well stated.

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. Credibility is
everything in journalism. Once you undermine yours in the way the
above quote does, you are no longer credible.
It is true that camera manufacturers do all they can to influence the
media. That's their job. But once the media, in this case DPReview,
start letting the way they are treated by those manufacturers
influence their editorial judgement, they are on a slippery slope. If
not getting a camera to preview is enough to change DPReviews
editorial judgement, what happens if a manufacturer tries to
manipulate coverage through increasing or decreasing advertising on
the site? A credible editor should of course be able to categorically
deny ever being influenced by camera manufacturers. If the above
quote is correct, that credibility is unfortunately lost, and we as
readers of the material on this site are left to wonder who actually
controls the information here, and for what reasons.
Sophie.

 

[zakk9]

How DPReview gets access to cameras to test has nothing to do with
anything. If you don't get it from the manufacturer, you go out and
buy one. The idea is to report the news, period.
Soph.

Agree. Just the fact that this, and several other (most?) websites depend on free cameras from the suppliers will always in some way or another influence what we read here. Unfortunately, this seems to be the current state of things.

--
Jorgen, my name is Jorgen

 

[LLS1]

If Olympus wants to shoot itself in the foot, then you can't
criticize Phil for letting it do so. Whatever the reasons, Oly seems
to have divorced itself from DPReview. I just noticed that on Oly
America's 's E-510 web page, the banner making note of DPReview's
"Highly Recommended" rating has been replaced with links to Imaging
Resource's tests and video.

The real reason is probably that it wasn't there to begin with. Phil reviewed the e410 not the 510.