At last DP Review are honest!

[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?"

:

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.

The implication you were giving is that they are specifically biased in favor of Nikon, versus their "Direct Competitor" which is of course, Canon. The 80D got a "good" review, pretty much the same as the 70D or any other Canon camera they give a good review to. They still slagged hardcore on the tracking AF.

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.

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?

Now , I would counter this by saying since Canon also pays them to produce sponsored content featuring Canon cameras, any anti-Canon bias that exists there has nothing to do with the infomercials. (and I do agree that the shenanigans with softening the blow about the D5's dynamic range were pretty ridiculous. They have harped on it in just about every Canon review for years, and suddenly it's not a big deal.)

Edit: So if you want to say that the paid content means they have no credibility, fine. I know sponsored content makes people suspicious. But don't say it's the source of bias in favor of one brand, when they have sponsored content from their competitors also.

 

[ritholtz]

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.

The implication you were giving is that they are specifically biased in favor of Nikon, versus their "Direct Competitor" which is of course, Canon. The 80D got a "good" review, pretty much the same as the 70D or any other Canon camera they give a good review to. They still slagged hardcore on the tracking AF.

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.

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?

Now , I would counter this by saying since Canon also pays them to produce sponsored content featuring Canon cameras, any anti-Canon bias that exists there has nothing to do with the infomercials. (and I do agree that the shenanigans with softening the blow about the D5's dynamic range were pretty ridiculous. They have harped on it in just about every Canon review for years, and suddenly it's not a big deal.)

Edit: So if you want to say that the paid content means they have no credibility, fine. I know sponsored content makes people suspicious. But don't say it's the source of bias in favor of one brand, when they have sponsored content from their competitors also.

May be one pays more than other. They are not dumb to bite the hands that feed. It is like reading car magazines which needs to think about their advertising interests. Which reviewer buys their own equipment and provides reviews?

 

[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?"

:

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.

The implication you were giving is that they are specifically biased in favor of Nikon, versus their "Direct Competitor" which is of course, Canon. The 80D got a "good" review, pretty much the same as the 70D or any other Canon camera they give a good review to. They still slagged hardcore on the tracking AF.

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.

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?

Now , I would counter this by saying since Canon also pays them to produce sponsored content featuring Canon cameras, any anti-Canon bias that exists there has nothing to do with the infomercials. (and I do agree that the shenanigans with softening the blow about the D5's dynamic range were pretty ridiculous. They have harped on it in just about every Canon review for years, and suddenly it's not a big deal.)

Edit: So if you want to say that the paid content means they have no credibility, fine. I know sponsored content makes people suspicious. But don't say it's the source of bias in favor of one brand, when they have sponsored content from their competitors also.

May be one pays more than other. They are not dumb to bite the hands that feed. It is like reading car magazines which needs to think about their advertising interests. Which reviewer buys their own equipment and provides reviews?

I am not doubting that sites that receive loaner equipment for reviews are subject to scrutiny on how negative they can be in a review. It's the same with video game reviews, or cars as you said, or anything else.

What I am doubting in the extreme is that Nikon is paying for anti canon sentiment at DPR. I think that's looking for boogeymen in the closet. It's silly. If Canon thought there was some pervasive anti-canon attitude there, paid for by their chief rival, they wouldn't pay to produce any sponsored content with them at all now would they? They'd pull all their press privileges and just be done with it.

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

Rishi is in love...

Rishi is a techno-geek, specifically, a camera techno-geek. He is just in love with the technical extremities that the Sony sensor and the D5 AF (under some use cases) have and not many real users care about.

So, don't tease him.

 

[tr573]

No one said Nikon paying for anti canon stuff.

You didn't, but I think you need to re-read the first page of this thread before saying no one did

 

[privatebydesign]

No one said Nikon paying for anti canon stuff.

You didn't, but I think you need to re-read the first page of this thread before saying no one did

There is a huge difference between "anti Canon stuff" and overselling a rival feature (3D tracking when compared to rivals), under reporting a failing that previously was a core requirement (D5 DR) or feint praise and misleading headlines. Is a camera with 1/10 stop less DR really only "catching up" or are they essentially the same?

I am not paranoid, I don't wear a tinfoil hat. I like my reporting to come from independent relatively even keeled sources. If I want a liberal leftist take I'll look at CNN or NBC, if I want something with a right leaning I know to look at the Wall Street Journal or Yahoo News, but I know what to expect.

I don't care where the bias comes from, I just need to know it is there. I now know DPR will write whatever they feel will "entertain" us, which doesn't mean that entertainment is worthless, it is just viewed from a different perspective.

What got my goat about Rishi specifically was his adamant insistence that he was not biased and he answered to no paymaster (be that Canon or Nikon or Sigma et al), all whilst planning or being on a paid Nikon infomercial shoot. That grates and strikes to the very heart of credibility and professed independence.

Let me put this another way.

I work for a cement review company, we publish our results and reviews on a website. My review company, whilst not entirely obvious, is actually owned by a cement sales company, I don't know how much they make selling one cement brand over another, or maybe I do, I'm not telling you. I am independent, I can write what I want, I am unbiased (you can trust me on that).

As well as reviews I make infomercials for specific cement companies, they fly me all over the country and not only pay me they feed me well and entertain me, I love those company 'jollies'. While filming them (which is great for my profile as a media creator) I work alongside the company reps and we do our best to show the products in their best light, obviously we never mention any issues or highlight where a competitor might actually be 'better' suited, we don't label our infomercials as such particularly well, but it is there, trust me, I am unbiased. Oh, if this works out one company has suggested they would like to do a lot more of these but I am not telling you which company, trust me I am unbiased.

Do you trust the findings of that review site as unbiased when they contradict a horrible looking website made by a cement user who publishes the results he gets from actually using the different brands of cement that he paid for?

 

[tr573]

Do you trust the findings of that review site as unbiased when they contradict a horrible looking website made by a cement user who publishes the results he gets from actually using the different brands of cement that he paid for?

I do not trust them as wholly unbiased, but neither do I think they are favoring one company who pays them to create a review over another company who pays them to create a review. I can find two recent Canon sponsored videos to one Nikon on their site, which makes me lean even more that this sponsored content has nothing to do with the fact that they slag on Canon's tracking in every review.

 

[privatebydesign]

Do you trust the findings of that review site as unbiased when they contradict a horrible looking website made by a cement user who publishes the results he gets from actually using the different brands of cement that he paid for?

I do not trust them as wholly unbiased, but neither do I think they are favoring one company who pays them to create a review over another company who pays them to create a review. I can find two recent Canon sponsored videos to one Nikon on their site, which makes me lean even more that this sponsored content has nothing to do with the fact that they slag on Canon's tracking in every review.

Semantics. You can conclude what you want, but you can't do that from a position of knowledge.

Do you know how much the company paid for one infomercial against the amount the other company paid for two? Do you know what is going on in the background?

The key part, for me, is that Rishi banged on relentlessly about how unbiased he was, which I took exception to as his writing reflected clear bias. You now agree that within the scenario he works you do not trust that output as wholly unbiased. My point is made.

The extent that the bias extends is debatable but the existence of it isn't, despite the claims of the 'independent reviewer'.

 

[Loswr]

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?

Of course it applies outside of photo gear reviews (which I why I stated 'buying' an opinion piece is a quintessential example of bias).

In your specific example, probably not too much. The reason is that trials (both pharma- and government-sponsored) have their data monitored by an indepentent board (DSMBs) who are the first to be unblinded (and before that, neither the trial physicians nor the sponsors should know who is on active drug). Those montitoring boards are the ones who stop trials early, for example, usually due safety issues / adverse events that occur, but in some cases because the drug is working well enough that it becomes unethical to continue giving patients placebo instead of active. Now, where you can see bias in the process is with the sharing of the results, since that is under the sponsors' control and negative data are not always shared (although in recent years, most large pharma are chosing to publish/present the data on failed trials).

So in the case of a pharma sponsor inducing bias into the conduct of a trial, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The tree you should be barking up is not R&D, but for marketed drugs. For example, kickbacks to increase prescription rates, all-expense-paid informational meetings held at Caribbean resorts, or even local small group "medical education" sessions like this one:

Fortunately, that sort of thing is being curbed by the Sunshine Act (which is a good thing, but in some cases it goes to the extremes, for example with the more strict Massachusetts counterpart of that legislation, an academic researcher who happens to be a state-licensed clinician and comes in to a pharma company to present his/her scientific data in a seminar has to file paperwork to declare the $4 catered sandwich from the lunch tray).

 

[Loswr]

The key part, for me, is that Rishi banged on relentlessly about how unbiased he was, which I took exception to as his writing reflected clear bias. You now agree that within the scenario he works you do not trust that output as wholly unbiased. My point is made.

The extent that the bias extends is debatable but the existence of it isn't, despite the claims of the 'independent reviewer'.

^^This.

 

[IglooEater]

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?

Yes. Absolutely. that's why there are separate groups that do double-blind randomized controlled tests that involve tens of thousand of people.

 

[xps]

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.

+1

No one mentioned Sony as biasing-company

 

[romanr74]

Now , I would counter this by saying since Canon also pays them to produce sponsored content featuring Canon cameras, any anti-Canon bias that exists there has nothing to do with the infomercials. (and I do agree that the shenanigans with softening the blow about the D5's dynamic range were pretty ridiculous. They have harped on it in just about every Canon review for years, and suddenly it's not a big deal.)

Edit: So if you want to say that the paid content means they have no credibility, fine. I know sponsored content makes people suspicious. But don't say it's the source of bias in favor of one brand, when they have sponsored content from their competitors also.

+10

 

[romanr74]

Semantics. You can conclude what you want, but you can't do that from a position of knowledge.

No-one here can, right!?