At last DP Review are honest!

[privatebydesign]

So at long last DPR have actually gone public with what many of us have known for a while, they are producers of paid infomercials for Nikon and Amazon.

This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.

Now I don't have an issue with that, they can be whatever they want, but don't get on your high horse and preach impartial and unbiased opinions on the one hand and work for Nikon and Amazon with the other.


https://www.dpreview.com/videos/5840060247/field-test-action-photography-with-the-nikon-d5-professional-dslr

 

[jebrady03]

They also produced a piece sponsored by Sigma.

I don't see an issue with it, as long as they are honest.

 

[privatebydesign]

They also produced a piece sponsored by Sigma.

I don't see an issue with it, as long as they are honest.

It's like modern politics in the USA world, how can you legitimately separate the money from influencing opinions? How can you honestly expect the same reviewer to be both a paid infomercial presenter for Nikon and offer an impartial comparison between a Nikon and a direct competitor?

 

[privatebydesign]

Even better, the criteria they lay out in answer to this question

"How can I trust any content that has been funded directly or indirectly by a sponsor?"

is

" If we don't think that a particular piece of video or written content will inform or entertain you we don't publish it"

which is exactly the same thing Ken Rockwell says. At least they are now saying they are on the same page.

Funny because when I called Rishi an entertainer and a pathetic impartial reviewer recently a few people here got so mad at me.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
Funny because when I called Rishi an entertainer and a pathetic impartial reviewer recently a few people here got so mad at me.

I for one still don't see why Rishi is an entertainer....

Because he specifically states he is. What about that sentence don't you understand?

" If we don't think that a particular piece of video or written content will inform or entertain you we don't publish it"

Entertainment, by definition, is created by entertainers.

DPR makes money by creating sponsored entertainment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review?

...

Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a term for this...

[quote author=Rishi Sanyal @ We're-not-biased-DPR]
This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.
[/quote]

Actually, Rishi...there are several terms for this. Biased is the mildest. Blatant liar is another applicable term. Yes, I know that if you reply at all, you'll argue that 'we clearly label sponsored pieces and anything not so-labeled is not influenced by outside parties.' Blah blah blah. DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Amazon makes money through sales, not entertainment.

I guess you're talking about amazon.dilbertland. Meanwhile, in the real world...

 

[pwp]

Slaves to the Amazon/Nikon payroll? Well at least we've got that out in the open. Credibility zero.

The now proven incorrect perception of DP Review being an independent and impartial review site has been shredded, Rishi's latest blatant indiscretions being the nail in the coffin.

Other than picking up the odd bit of industry news, visiting DP Review is largely a waste of time, unless you're a fan of infomercials.

-pw

 

[IglooEater]

And suddenly I just gained a whole lot of respect for dpr. I DON'T CARE if a reviewer is biased. IF he/she admits it. The reality is that we are ALL biased in someway or another. The most biased individual is the one dishonest about his/her own bias. The most trustworthy reviewer is the one that is honest about his/her biases in my opinion.

This is not now credibility zero for dpr- their credibility was already at zero. I've not met anyone who took their reviews seriously. On the contrary, this is credibility INCREASE. Everyone already knew they were biased. It was beyond blatantly obvious. What frustrated the h*** out of me is how they denied repeatedly it in face of all the evidence.

Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.

 

[privatebydesign]

And suddenly I just gained a whole lot of respect for dpr. I DON'T CARE if a reviewer is biased. IF he/she admits it. The reality is that we are ALL biased in someway or another. The most biased individual is the one dishonest about his/her own bias. The most trustworthy reviewer is the one that is honest about his/her biases in my opinion.

This is not now credibility zero for dpr- their credibility was already at zero. I've not met anyone who took their reviews seriously. On the contrary, this is credibility INCREASE. Everyone already knew they were biased. It was beyond blatantly obvious. What frustrated the h*** out of me is how they denied repeatedly it in face of all the evidence.

Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.

As I said, they can be whatever they want to be and I have no problem with that. But don't argue ad nauseum you are unbiased and independent whilst on location filming a paid and sponsored infomercial!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.

While I agree it was honest to disclose the source of bias (and that's a good thing) the best thing would have been to not lie by previously claiming to be unbiased.

I wonder...if Rishi has been on Nikon's payroll for long...if Nikon's remuneration caused his bias...or if he was chosen to write on behalf of Nikon because of his manifest bias...in other words...

Which came first?

 

[tr573]

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat

"This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon. What does this mean?"

:

 

[privatebydesign]

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat

"This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon. What does this mean?"

:

It means they are not impartial, it means they are not fair and balanced, it means none of their "journalistic" pieces have any validity or merit to them even if they are right.

It means pay to play.

Canon paid up for the 80D and it got a good review. Nikon paid for the D5 and it got an amazing review and several very favorable comparisons. Sigma paid to play, suddenly DPR recommend Sigma. See a pattern?

Again, I don't care if DPR want to be infomercial producers, just don't insult us all with the 'fair unbiased and trustworthy' hollier than thou attitude. They are not journalists, they are entertainers, don't try to claim you are a journalist if you are an entertainer, Hannity doesn't, O'Reilly doesn't, Rishi and the rest of the crew at DPR shouldn't.

 

[Canoner]

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat

"This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon. What does this mean?"

:

Here is another sponsered by Canon. No big deal.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4149784482/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-field-test-dpreview-goes-to-the-rodeo

 

[jebrady03]

Wow... You'd think Rishi forced himself on someone's wife and then burned their vintage concert t-shirt collection while punching their dying mother in the face. So much animosity and hatred here.

 

[privatebydesign]

Wow... You'd think Rishi forced himself on someone's wife and then burned their vintage concert t-shirt collection while punching their dying mother in the face. So much animosity and hatred here.

I don't see annimosity and hatred. I see an expose of a very well educated and intelligent poster who claimed to be an unbiased journalist with the weight and power of DPR behind him.

To me it feels like his magisterial and magical cloak of superiority has been pulled away and he has been exposed as a sad little liar.

Again, I have absolutely no issue with him being an entertainer, but to try to pull people down who point out his bias as he declaims himself independent and fair whilst out filming for a Nikon infomercial is about as big a double standard as you are going to get outside of politics.

For one of the biggest photo sites most prominent 'journalists' to have been shown to be doing this is noteworthy.

 

[Orangutan]

DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.

Does this apply outside of photo gear reviews? E.g., if a pharma company pays a medical clinic to test a drug, must we presume the result is biased?

 

[physioz]

DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.

Does this apply outside of photo gear reviews? E.g., if a pharma company pays a medical clinic to test a drug, must we presume the result is biased?

Well, if there happen to be 'statistical outliers' showing less than positive outcomes for the drug vs placebo what do you think might happen to them? or adverse events? You can answer this for yourself ...

 

[Orangutan]

DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.

Does this apply outside of photo gear reviews? E.g., if a pharma company pays a medical clinic to test a drug, must we presume the result is biased?

Well, if there happen to be 'statistical outliers' showing less than positive outcomes for the drug vs placebo what do you think might happen to them? or adverse events? You can answer this for yourself ...

No, I don't think I can answer the question, but I can ask it.

 

[9VIII]

Now if only we could get Tony Northrup to admit his content is produced primarily for entertainment value.

(I do find his videos useful sometimes, but the videos are funny just as often as they are informative.)