DPReview and journalistic integrity.

[Miss Sophie]

The vast majority of media outlets are private, and commercial. Of course DPReview can choose what to publish. I never questioned that. It is the ethics of letting journalistic judgement being influenced by how you're treated by the subject of your stories I pointed out. It is obvious that Olympus and all camera manufacturers will try to influence their products' reception. Reviewers should not be influenced by that, but produce reviews that are credible.
Soph.

To the original OP, this is a private site. Phil can choose what to
review and what not to review. You don't know the full story or the
politics involve. There's no said law written or unwritten that a
Journalist has to onus to "report" a review.
If Olympus promise him a camera then reneg and then give a competitor
that camera model then bad on Olympus. Sounds like to me they're the
ones trying to influence the camera's welcoming.

 

[Miss Sophie]

I was not being very clear. Of course DPReview can choose to review whatever they want. It is the reasons for those decisions I question, given the quote from Mr. Askey.

As for whether or not reviewing and publishing constitutes journalism, I'm sure you can find arguments for and against that.

Again: DPReview can choose never to review a single camera ever again, but I would question their integrity if that decision was based on how they are treated by the very manufacturers whose products they are reviewing.
Soph.

The fact is that Oly's a small player in the DSLR market. Any owner
of a site like this one would be brainless to not place a priority on
reviewing cameras that the large majority of his or her viewership
are interested in. If the Oly marketing department is so frackin'
brainless that they won't provide the owner of the Internet's most
popular digital photography website a sample of their flagship DSLR
to preview prior to their big launch announcement, then that site
owner has every justification to place his priorities elsewhere. He'd
be foolish not to.

Steve

IMO, there's a valid justification for Phil's stance:

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

 

[olymac]

Sounds familiar ........

 

[Miss Sophie]

I'm afraid it's not necessarily up to the publisher to decide whether what he or she publishes constitutes journalism.

I agree entirely with you in that DPReview have every right to consider any camera important or not. However, that was not my point. My point was that the quote from Mr. Askey, if correct, indicates other, less professional reasons for choosing not to review a camera.

I hold no religious views or feelings, hence your accusing me of crusading is inaccurate and I will ignore it
Soph.

If DPReview consider a
camera important enough to be reviewed

Then, it seems that they DON'T consider it important enough to be
reviewed.

Enough for your little crusade?

 

[Louis_Dobson]

because they were moving offices. NOTHING has gotten a review, look for yourself.

E510 review due shortly, apparently.

Paranoia around here or what?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Miss Sophie]

We can have a long interesting debate over whether or not reviewing and publishing constitutes journalism, especially on a site that also carries a "news" section. There is no clear answer to that, and it is not only for the publisher himself to decide.

Please look up the definition of "corruption". It is no way limited to a financial transaction. How else could a file on a computer be "corrupted"?

The quote I referred to said Review, not PREview.

Soph.

First, journalism and reviewing are not the same thing.

Second, "corruption" would be if the content of a review were
affected by commercial pressures. I see no sign that this has ever
been the case with DPR.

Third, it is clear that Phil would have liked to produce a preview
(as IR did) of the E-3, and is unhappy that a competitor site was
able to do so because it was in fact given a camera (clearly with
very beta firmware, since "at this point we can't comment on image
quality, because what we saw wasn't final"). He nonetheless has every
right to be peeved with Olympus for privileging a competitor site.
I'd be very unhappy if I were him.

Fourth, Olympus is making some big claims for this camera in regard
to AF speed and IS, that may be difficult to substantiate with the
current pre-production model.

And finally, ask yourself where is the review (or preview) of the
Canon 1DMIII, the flagship pro camera (the 1Ds being a specialty
item), for instance? We don't know about that story either.

Cheers, John

 

[Tony Mah]

Hello Sophie,

How can you make a balanced judgement on journalistic integrity, truth and the practicalities of supply and demand, considering the following?

Truth1: Olympus told DPR they would loan them a prerelease E3, but they changed their minds

Truth2: Phil was unhappy about them changing their mind and chose to write this publically as a front page editorial

Truth3: DPReview like 99% of gear review sites get their products as loaner from the manufacturer and don't rent or but expensive gear. So if a manufacturer doesn't loan the gear, no review.

What justification do you have for making a legalistic judgement that Phil is unethical because his words "may" imply that if in future Olympus appologises and offers a loaner, DPR "may" refuse to do a review?

It is not unreasonable to argue that what Phil wrote is a good example of journalistic integrity even though it is counter-cultural. Most gear sites/magazines would rather keep silent than risk possibly offending a company's marketing dept. What mainstream mag if Canon or Nikon marketing changed their minds about giving them a loaner slr would publish this behind the scenes dance and possibly embarass the manufacturer and not get priority on future loaners? Under what sets of journalistic rules are you implying that Phil should keep silent about how he was treated? Are you saying that if he had the emails showing that Olympus agreed and then changed their mind, it would be wrong for him to publish them?

Tony Mah

 

[olymac]

SteveM7i wrote:
.......The fact is that Oly's a small player in the DSLR market....

Steve

So you are saying that there are more D3s, EOS 1s etc being sold than the E-510?

 

[Miss Sophie]

Some very good points, but the basic principles remain the same. And I was not specifically referring to advertising, but to other, apparently stated, motives for not reviewing a camera.

Just because the media is largely in the pocket of big business, does not mean we can't occasionally question their judgement, does it?
Sophie.

I think your idea of journalistic integrity is a fantasy, not reality.

The first job of any mass market media outlet is to survive.
Attracting advertisers is vital to the survival of this site, and to
just about any "journalistic" enterprise.

The one thing you will see very little of on news media is coverage
of contented people. Contented people don't need any new products,
and can ignore advertising. Some how, some way, entertainment and
news alike must leave people in a state of material wanting. That
sets up the advertising. If the "content" doesn't set up the
advertising then the advertisers will take their money elsewhere, to
other "content providers" more to their liking.

In this model, "Journalistic integrity" is irrelevant. Either your
journalists move product, directly or indirectly, or your media
outlet goes broke. I want this site to survive, and I understand what
game is being played out here.

Most of the camera reviews must say, "This is good enough to buy, but
it could be better." That will move product now and in the future and
keep the advertisers happy. I'm OK with that. Integrity becomes a
balancing act of being able to keep advertisers happy and somehow
provide factual information that camera buyers want. I think this
site does a pretty good job of these two things, once you learn to
read between the lines in the reviews.

 

[olymac]

Too little reviews ....

 

[Miss Sophie]

Good points. I am not trying to make a balanced judgement. I am just somewhat concerned at the implications of a quote from Mr. Askey that I find questionable in terms of journalistic integrity. I want independent, accurate reviews, not the result of hob-nobbing between manufacturers and reviewers. And I don't care how the reviewer obtains the cameras, that's his problem. Mine is choosing which one to buy, based on a review by someone I can trust.
Sophie.

Hello Sophie,

How can you make a balanced judgement on journalistic integrity,
truth and the practicalities of supply and demand, considering the
following?
Truth1: Olympus told DPR they would loan them a prerelease E3, but
they changed their minds
Truth2: Phil was unhappy about them changing their mind and chose to
write this publically as a front page editorial
Truth3: DPReview like 99% of gear review sites get their products as
loaner from the manufacturer and don't rent or but expensive gear. So
if a manufacturer doesn't loan the gear, no review.

What justification do you have for making a legalistic judgement that
Phil is unethical because his words "may" imply that if in future
Olympus appologises and offers a loaner, DPR "may" refuse to do a
review?

It is not unreasonable to argue that what Phil wrote is a good
example of journalistic integrity even though it is counter-cultural.
Most gear sites/magazines would rather keep silent than risk possibly
offending a company's marketing dept. What mainstream mag if Canon or
Nikon marketing changed their minds about giving them a loaner slr
would publish this behind the scenes dance and possibly embarass the
manufacturer and not get priority on future loaners? Under what sets
of journalistic rules are you implying that Phil should keep silent
about how he was treated? Are you saying that if he had the emails
showing that Olympus agreed and then changed their mind, it would be
wrong for him to publish them?

Tony Mah

 

[illy]

now that DPreview has moved offices, reorganised, hired new staff there will be many reviews forthcoming. As for the E-3 doesn't he need the actual camera to do this?

Like him or not at least he says it the way he sees it, which is actually quite refreshing with all the marketing, hype and BS given to new cameras by their respective companies.

 

[Miss Sophie]

I'm sorry if I've been unclear about this, so: DPReview is free to review or not review cameras as they please. They can obtain those cameras any way they feel is proper. That is their job, to have professional judgement on what gets and what does not get reviewed. The only thing I have questioned is a quote from Mr. Askey which, if correct, indicates other than professional reasons for choosing which cameras to review.

Now please show me where I've stated that reviewers have to buy and review anything at all. If there is a sudden drought in interesting cameras to review, then simply don't review any at all, but for professional reasons.

As for manufacturers punishing or in other ways trying to manipulate media, that's normal. DPReview is a big site, they can handle it, I'm sure.
Soph.

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.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

If they couldn't get him a camera, he couldn't review it.

And if they can't get him a camera until everybody else has already produced a review, it won't be something people are very interested in, so I doubt it will be top of the priority list.

And as for all the people moaning there is no 510 review: they were moving offices so there were no full reviews of ANYTHING for a long period. They've promised they are all coming shortly.

No great loss anyway - Oly reviews tend to be a bit of a lottery around here. It is quite DIFFERENT to most other cameras, so you never know if you will get a rave (E410 / E500) or a slagging (E330), and a slagging costs more sales than a rave gains in this class.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Miss Sophie]

Fair enough, but read by a sceptical eye, isn't it also fair to interpret your quote as an indication that you will not review that camera, period?
Sophie.

What it means is if they keep breaking promises it's unlikely we'll
ever get our hands on a camera... Nothing that WE have done has left
us in this situation, we now have a huge backlog of SLR's to review,
if they had got the pre-production E-3 to us when they had promised
to it would have slotted in quite nicely and would have been
previewed in time for announcement.

--
Phil Askey
Editor, dpreview.com

 

[Miss Sophie]

Louis.

Here's the quote from Mr. Askey again:

"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."

Sounds pretty final to me. Sounds like even if I lend him my E-3, we'll "be lucky to se a review here", doesn't it?

Sophie.

If they couldn't get him a camera, he couldn't review it.

And if they can't get him a camera until everybody else has already
produced a review, it won't be something people are very interested
in, so I doubt it will be top of the priority list.

And as for all the people moaning there is no 510 review: they were
moving offices so there were no full reviews of ANYTHING for a long
period. They've promised they are all coming shortly.

No great loss anyway - Oly reviews tend to be a bit of a lottery
around here. It is quite DIFFERENT to most other cameras, so you
never know if you will get a rave (E410 / E500) or a slagging (E330),
and a slagging costs more sales than a rave gains in this class.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Phil Askey]

Not really, no.

What it means is if they keep breaking promises it's unlikely we'll
ever get our hands on a camera... Nothing that WE have done has left
us in this situation, we now have a huge backlog of SLR's to review,
if they had got the pre-production E-3 to us when they had promised
to it would have slotted in quite nicely and would have been
previewed in time for announcement.

--
Phil Askey
Editor, dpreview.com

--
Phil Askey
Editor, dpreview.com

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Firstly it says Oly didn't send him a camera, so he couldn't review it, and if they carry on the same way (IE NOT SENDING HIM A CAMERA) then he won't be able to review it.

So all this fuss is a load of nonsense.

However even if he HAD meant what you have chosen to bend his words to men, it would STILL be perfectly reasonable - it is not sensible to spend limited time and resources writing reviews of kit that is already out and been reviewed by everyone else. Any review site is in the business of getting readers so they can get advertising. A late review does not attract many readers so it is better to go review something else.

So, again, although he DIDN'T say he wasn't planning to review the E3 when Oly finally send him a sample, it would have been perfectly reasonable if he HAD said it.

The net result of furious attacks like this, based on partial reading of messages, is that we stop being told anything. I sish the paranoid and the perennially indignant would give it a rest.

If you want to attack Phil, attack him for the reviews. Have a look at the bizarre E330 review, or the dynamic range tests.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Higuma]

Sounds more like you have done some creative interpretation and jumping to conclusions...

Through Phil's replies he has effectively "put this to bed"...

Broken promises = no camera = no review = no sweat of Phil's arsse ( he's got enough to do without having to "beg" Olympus for a camera to test )...

More importantly, perhaps you should just apologize for trying to incite a "Lynch Mob mentality"...

Why not just rejoice in the "arrival" of all that is the E-3... I mean Geez willikers, a lot of people have been waiting almost 4 years for this day and the first thing you gotta do is distract everybody with "journalistic integrity" and "conspiracy theories"...

Cheers...

 

[tweedle]

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.

[...] we as readers of the material on this site are left to wonder
who actually controls the information here, and for what reasons.

What we have seen from dpreview in this case is not different from the attitudes seen in other cases.

Phil recently declared that if manufacturers did not send press releases to dpreview, the news would not be covered.

In the current example, dpreview says: If manufacturers do not deliver a camera to us before announcement (so that we can have a hands-onpreview ready), then we probably won't review the camera at all.

What we see is dpreview trying to use force to discipline manufacturers: Do it our way or we will expell you'. This goes to show that dpreview is very confident about their importance to the buyers.

Dpreview may be just right, and their strategy may carry fruit. However, there are so many other digital photo sites out there and only so few camera manufacturers. At the end of the day, dpreview lives on trustworthy reviews of all brands in due time - and there's a fine line between playing your cards well and overplaying them.