Sun 29-May-11 11:03 PM | edited Mon 30-May-11 10:33 AM by agitater
>It's unfortunate, but it looks like financial gain may be >influencing DPRs objectivity.
I think Stan's assessment (and his recounting of the Canon comparison issue) is dead on. But I think these sorts of problems result from a failure (or lack) of editorial supervision. When writers/reviewers aren't checked by an experienced editor, when writers/reviewers aren't vetted to eliminate obvious bias, when editorial policy is not clearly elucidated, and when obvious factual errors contained in reviews are not properly corrected (merely quietly amended later rather than broadcast or featured), DPR becomes less a reliable publication than just another busy blog and forum site.
Tech journalism was co-opted by advertising interests many years ago. Whatever objective agendas and policies existed in a few print publications (by no means the majority of them), died alongside the demise of print editions. Popular Photography is a great example of a mag that has always tested bodies and lenses quite rigorously (and despite arguments about its test methods - all methodologies contain flaws - at least PopPhoto tested in a consistent manner), but yet always found a way to enthusiastically trumpet almost every body and lens except for those real turkeys made by companies that would never be big advertisers in any event.
I've received so many complaints and counteractions from product makers (software and hardware) because of the "Cons" sections in my own reviews that I'm under no delusions about the relationship between difficulty getting review copies/models/items and a past review containing one too many Cons. This despite my transparent efforts to always keep my reviews as upbeat as possible. DPR, by contrast, has a much larger audience for its reviews and can level criticism (and does so) when it's appropriate. The problem is the basis for such criticism, and that's where a tough senior editor should be eliminating obvious bias in order to avoid obscuring practical review documentation and testing results.
Sites such as Nikonians may truly become the last bastions of collective objectivity when it comes to product assessments.