thanks for the info Sean.
S
sreidvt
Guest
Yes, we've had a few words. <G>
S
sreidvt
Guest
I myself really enjoyed Jono's coverage and I especially appreciate all the time and energy he spent beta-testing that camera and helping to improve it. If he hasn't been recognized for that yet he should be.
Libel is one thing, inaccuracies are another. For better or worse, accurate or not, it has become generally accepted that the M8 early problems were either not discovered or covered up by initial reviewers.
Journalism is frankly in a sorry state, and not just on the net. From scandals like Jason Blair, just to name one event, professional news organizations are losing credibility and subscribers hand over fist (as my dad used to say.)
Journalism is frankly in a sorry state, and not just on the net. From scandals like Jason Blair, just to name one event, professional news organizations are losing credibility and subscribers hand over fist (as my dad used to say.)
S
sreidvt
Guest
Accepted by some but incorrect. Applied to all of the early reviews, its a myth that is not supported by fact. The only way one could accept that as true would be if he or she had not read all of those reviews. This gets right to the heart of what I'm talking about. Howard French perpetuated that myth despite having not read all the source materials.
There's a lot of "accepted knowledge" which is plainly wrong. Ask some old motorcyclists about how one should, supposedly, never use the front brake.
I'm guessing you perhaps have never read my early M8 reviews. Would that be true? I don't expect you to but they might contain things that surprise you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, there are an unending number of things accepted as 'fact' when they simply aren't. I don't want to open a can of worms by stating examples, but they are all over the place, and many of the inaccuracies are perpetuated by willing media. I would not want to be in the public eye, it would take several full time employees just to correct the record, and even then it would fall short.
Yes, I read all them all, prior to buying my M8.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sreidvt
Guest
Of course, there are an unending number of things accepted as 'fact' when they simply aren't. I don't want to open a can of worms by stating examples, but they are all over the place, and many of the inaccuracies are perpetuated by willing media. I would not want to be in the public eye, it would take several full time employees just to correct the record, and even then it would fall short.
Yes, I read all them all, prior to buying my M8.
It's true that one ultimately can't correct the many misrepresentations of his or her work. But if you read those early reviews than at least you know that "accepted knowledge" on this isn't quite true.
Cheers,
Sean
What's ironic here, is arguably there was more damage done mentioning consulting an attorney, than in the original comment by French.
S
sreidvt
Guest
Maybe but that was all in private e-mail exchanges in which various people said a lot of interesting things. I just always keep my private correspondence separate from what I publish. If one were to publish everything in private e-mails we probably have even more hot debates over this and that.
Thinking about consulting one's attorney is not really that dramatic an action. Many professionals do it from time to time. Mine is also a judge and has a very sharp and practical mind.
Anyway, it seems to be sorted out between Mike and I.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Uncommon Places is the final word in color photography, as far as I'm concerned.
Olsen
Well-known
Interesting, clarifying and hilarious! Ha, ha!
S
sreidvt
Guest
Deeply troubling as well.
S
sreidvt
Guest
Not all journalism though.
Yet, I see your point. In another part of my professional life I have been interviewed for magazine and newspaper articles about 12 times. Only once or twice did the journalist actually report what I said. Even the Wall Street Journal switched things around to suit the "flavor" of the related stories they were running then.
Still, there is good journalism to be found if one know where to look. Not all of it has gone to hell in a hand basket.
Jaans
Well-known
Sorry if I am slow to the punch, but was is the whole background to this story. Been of the internet for a few days, so maybe I missed something. I used to read the online photographer occassionally, but am totally out of the loop here. Does anyone have a link or something?
bunkawen14
A Glimpse of the World
Setting the Record Straight
Setting the Record Straight
As far as I can tell, Sean has said nothing in his many interventions across the web about contemplating legal action against me, which was hinted at in an email.
I have kept quiet on this matter largely because I lead a very busy life and cannot spend my time in endless back and forth on something like this.
Intended or not, there is however a very definite chilling effect that comes from even the hint of legal action.
There is more than one side to the issues raised in my original post; comments made without malice toward Sean. Indeed, it is my belief that the most important ideas underlying that post have been elided in much of the subsequent commentary.
If Sean is interested in a full airing of these issues, a good start would be a clear and affirmative statement that legal action is not being contemplated and will not be taken toward any of the parties to the discussion, myself included.
For now, let me simply say that the discussion of journalism and its quality and merits is misplaced. At no point in this discussion have I presented myself as a journalist. My comments were not the product of journalism and were not offered as such. Needless to say, I feel that a broader attack on the profession in the context of a discussion like this is inappropriate. Fortunately, though, my skin is thick.
Howard French
Setting the Record Straight
As far as I can tell, Sean has said nothing in his many interventions across the web about contemplating legal action against me, which was hinted at in an email.
I have kept quiet on this matter largely because I lead a very busy life and cannot spend my time in endless back and forth on something like this.
Intended or not, there is however a very definite chilling effect that comes from even the hint of legal action.
There is more than one side to the issues raised in my original post; comments made without malice toward Sean. Indeed, it is my belief that the most important ideas underlying that post have been elided in much of the subsequent commentary.
If Sean is interested in a full airing of these issues, a good start would be a clear and affirmative statement that legal action is not being contemplated and will not be taken toward any of the parties to the discussion, myself included.
For now, let me simply say that the discussion of journalism and its quality and merits is misplaced. At no point in this discussion have I presented myself as a journalist. My comments were not the product of journalism and were not offered as such. Needless to say, I feel that a broader attack on the profession in the context of a discussion like this is inappropriate. Fortunately, though, my skin is thick.
Howard French
I am glad that Sean and Howard have come here to express their feelings regarding this issue.
I think like the other threads, at this point this one has run it's course. I will close it now. Sean and Howard, if you would like to add anything more to this discussion please send me a PM and I will be happy to reopen this thread to allow you to do so.
Thank you.
I think like the other threads, at this point this one has run it's course. I will close it now. Sean and Howard, if you would like to add anything more to this discussion please send me a PM and I will be happy to reopen this thread to allow you to do so.
Thank you.
S
sreidvt
Guest
Howard French wrote:
"As far as I can tell, Sean has said nothing in his many interventions across the web about contemplating legal action against me, which was hinted at in an email.
I have kept quiet on this matter largely because I lead a very busy life and cannot spend my time in endless back and forth on something like this. Intended or not, there is however a very definite chilling effect that comes from even the hint of legal action.There is more than one side to the issues raised in my original post; comments made without malice toward Sean. Indeed, it is my belief that the most important ideas underlying that post have been elided in much of the subsequent commentary. If Sean is interested in a full airing of these issues, a good start would be a clear and affirmative statement that legal action is not being contemplated and will not be taken toward any of the parties to the discussion, myself included. For now, let me simply say that the discussion of journalism and its quality and merits is misplaced. At no point in this discussion have I presented myself as a journalist. My comments were not the product of journalism and were not offered as such. Needless to say, I feel that a broader attack on the profession in the context of a discussion like this is inappropriate. Fortunately, though, my skin is thick."
Howard,
Since TOP has not yet published my response to your characterizations of the journalists who participated in the Leica trip, I am glad that we can speak directly on this forum. As you know, I did tell Mike (in private e-mails) that I planned to meet with my attorney to find out if what you wrote there was slanderous (libel) but I would prefer to simply have the two of us discuss this directly and RFF seems to be a good place to do that. As you may know, I attemped multiple times to add a post to that blog entry but each one was censored. Since Mike and I have spoken, to try to sort things out, he's agreed to post an edited version of my comments though that has not yet appeared on TOP.
This has the potential to be a constructive discussion and maybe it is a better neutral ground for us to consider this.
You write that your comments were intended without malice to me. I'd like to quote your post on TOP to start with so that the readers can understand what we're talking about. http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...ographer/2009/09/leica-m9-links.html#comments
---------------
""What must said about this early group of 'reviews' is that the writers were all most assuredly very carefully selected by Leica, presumably on the assumption that they would write 'friendly' dispatches about the new camera. Leica will not have been disappointed by all of the present gushing, either.
"I do not say this out of churlishness. For better and worse, I am an M8 owner. I want very much for the M9 to be a success. I also, however, keenly remember how this murky business of what I'll call 'in-group' reviewers steered a lot of people badly wrong about the not-inexpensive M8.
"There were few if any adequate warnings and in most cases no warnings at all from this crowd about the very substantial shortcomings of the M8.
"When some of these very same reviewers were subsequently forced to acknowledge major issues, such as the handicapped IR design, requiring outboard filters for lenses, software issues, shutter noise, battery issues, frameline woes—and I could go on and on—they expended a great deal of energy on their sites and on other forums essentially making allowances for Leica and for the M8, judging that these problems were a small price to pay for this great new camera, with its great 'files quality.' Would that their readers have been placed in a position to make such judgments for themselves, fully armed with thorough and objective reviews prior to purchase. This should not be construed as an attack on Leica, on the M8 (or M9) or even on the reviewers, whom one deliberately leaves unnamed.
"It is, however, an attack on the troubling coziness that exists in this business that often passes off self-interested boosterism for journalism.
"As a start, one would like to see much greater disclosure about the relationships between these reviewers and their subjects, in this case, Leica."
To you post was added: "By the way, Howard, whose work we have featured in the past, is a former Senior Editor of The New York Times and is now an Associate Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His weblog is here."
---------------------
In your post you use the words/phrases "the writers were all", "what I'll call 'in-group' reviewers", "these very same reviewers" and "this crowd". You then state that you have deliberately left them unnamed though of course, their names all appear in the post above your comments (clearly including my own name). In all of the discussions about this post of yours, that I've seen, the readers seem to be quite aware that you are referring to the group of people listed above your post. The exception, of course, is Erwin Puts who, in a comment that was featured below your own, is careful to distinguish himself from what he calls the "American/British delegation".
About these reviewers you use phrase/senstences like: "the present gushing", "murky business", "steered a lot of people badly wrong", "There were few if any adequate warnings and in most cases no warnings at all from this crowd about the very substantial shortcomings of the M8.", "subsequently forced to acknowledge major issues" and, of course, your harsh criticism of our work continues from there. Those are fairly serious charges and you made them against a group of people.
In an e-mail to me you confirmed that you have not actually read my reviews. So my first concern, and it is quite serious, relates to how you, an experienced journalist and professor of journalism, can make such serious charges about work that you've not read. If you have not read my work, whose work (from the authors listed in that post) did you actually read? Your post certainly implies that you are quite familiar with the reviews written by "this crowd".
Whom were/are your charges and criticisms leveled at? Which reviewers?
I would argue, vehemently in fact, that your quite serious charges are not supported by facts. At the very least, your charges against the group as a whole are not supported by facts. They may also not be supported by facts in the case of "anyone" in that group but I am open to see your evidence to the contrary. I'm the only one of the reviewers who has publicly challenged your posting but I am certainly not the only reviewer who was angered by it and questioned its validity. I happen to think this is important enough to challenge.
In my opinion, such serious charges (which have great potential to damage people's reputations) should be supported by facts. I would imagine even the most junior of your journalism students are taught that. One does not, or should not, say such things lightly. Given your stated credibility as a journalist and professor of journalism (which we see listed clearly below your post on TOP), I would think this sort of fact-checking would be even more important than ever.
You talk about the "chilling effect" that a mention of libel law can create. But lets think for a moment about why libel law exists? Does it not exist to protect us from malicious and, importantly, unsubstantiated charges? So perhaps the courts are not needed in this case but I'd argue that your charges against this group of people were themseves quite chilling. I think one should think long and hard before publishing material that impugns people's reputations. It takes a temendous amount of work to build a credible reputation as a reviewer and I think one who chooses to damage that reputation would not make the choice lightly and/or without significant evidence. To act otherwise is, in my mind, unethical.
I look forward to your responses to these questions and points and I will certainly try to do my part to keep this discussion civil and on-point. I again thank RFF for providing a neutral forum where this can be discussed.
Sean Reid
"As far as I can tell, Sean has said nothing in his many interventions across the web about contemplating legal action against me, which was hinted at in an email.
I have kept quiet on this matter largely because I lead a very busy life and cannot spend my time in endless back and forth on something like this. Intended or not, there is however a very definite chilling effect that comes from even the hint of legal action.There is more than one side to the issues raised in my original post; comments made without malice toward Sean. Indeed, it is my belief that the most important ideas underlying that post have been elided in much of the subsequent commentary. If Sean is interested in a full airing of these issues, a good start would be a clear and affirmative statement that legal action is not being contemplated and will not be taken toward any of the parties to the discussion, myself included. For now, let me simply say that the discussion of journalism and its quality and merits is misplaced. At no point in this discussion have I presented myself as a journalist. My comments were not the product of journalism and were not offered as such. Needless to say, I feel that a broader attack on the profession in the context of a discussion like this is inappropriate. Fortunately, though, my skin is thick."
Howard,
Since TOP has not yet published my response to your characterizations of the journalists who participated in the Leica trip, I am glad that we can speak directly on this forum. As you know, I did tell Mike (in private e-mails) that I planned to meet with my attorney to find out if what you wrote there was slanderous (libel) but I would prefer to simply have the two of us discuss this directly and RFF seems to be a good place to do that. As you may know, I attemped multiple times to add a post to that blog entry but each one was censored. Since Mike and I have spoken, to try to sort things out, he's agreed to post an edited version of my comments though that has not yet appeared on TOP.
This has the potential to be a constructive discussion and maybe it is a better neutral ground for us to consider this.
You write that your comments were intended without malice to me. I'd like to quote your post on TOP to start with so that the readers can understand what we're talking about. http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...ographer/2009/09/leica-m9-links.html#comments
---------------
""What must said about this early group of 'reviews' is that the writers were all most assuredly very carefully selected by Leica, presumably on the assumption that they would write 'friendly' dispatches about the new camera. Leica will not have been disappointed by all of the present gushing, either.
"I do not say this out of churlishness. For better and worse, I am an M8 owner. I want very much for the M9 to be a success. I also, however, keenly remember how this murky business of what I'll call 'in-group' reviewers steered a lot of people badly wrong about the not-inexpensive M8.
"There were few if any adequate warnings and in most cases no warnings at all from this crowd about the very substantial shortcomings of the M8.
"When some of these very same reviewers were subsequently forced to acknowledge major issues, such as the handicapped IR design, requiring outboard filters for lenses, software issues, shutter noise, battery issues, frameline woes—and I could go on and on—they expended a great deal of energy on their sites and on other forums essentially making allowances for Leica and for the M8, judging that these problems were a small price to pay for this great new camera, with its great 'files quality.' Would that their readers have been placed in a position to make such judgments for themselves, fully armed with thorough and objective reviews prior to purchase. This should not be construed as an attack on Leica, on the M8 (or M9) or even on the reviewers, whom one deliberately leaves unnamed.
"It is, however, an attack on the troubling coziness that exists in this business that often passes off self-interested boosterism for journalism.
"As a start, one would like to see much greater disclosure about the relationships between these reviewers and their subjects, in this case, Leica."
To you post was added: "By the way, Howard, whose work we have featured in the past, is a former Senior Editor of The New York Times and is now an Associate Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His weblog is here."
---------------------
In your post you use the words/phrases "the writers were all", "what I'll call 'in-group' reviewers", "these very same reviewers" and "this crowd". You then state that you have deliberately left them unnamed though of course, their names all appear in the post above your comments (clearly including my own name). In all of the discussions about this post of yours, that I've seen, the readers seem to be quite aware that you are referring to the group of people listed above your post. The exception, of course, is Erwin Puts who, in a comment that was featured below your own, is careful to distinguish himself from what he calls the "American/British delegation".
About these reviewers you use phrase/senstences like: "the present gushing", "murky business", "steered a lot of people badly wrong", "There were few if any adequate warnings and in most cases no warnings at all from this crowd about the very substantial shortcomings of the M8.", "subsequently forced to acknowledge major issues" and, of course, your harsh criticism of our work continues from there. Those are fairly serious charges and you made them against a group of people.
In an e-mail to me you confirmed that you have not actually read my reviews. So my first concern, and it is quite serious, relates to how you, an experienced journalist and professor of journalism, can make such serious charges about work that you've not read. If you have not read my work, whose work (from the authors listed in that post) did you actually read? Your post certainly implies that you are quite familiar with the reviews written by "this crowd".
Whom were/are your charges and criticisms leveled at? Which reviewers?
I would argue, vehemently in fact, that your quite serious charges are not supported by facts. At the very least, your charges against the group as a whole are not supported by facts. They may also not be supported by facts in the case of "anyone" in that group but I am open to see your evidence to the contrary. I'm the only one of the reviewers who has publicly challenged your posting but I am certainly not the only reviewer who was angered by it and questioned its validity. I happen to think this is important enough to challenge.
In my opinion, such serious charges (which have great potential to damage people's reputations) should be supported by facts. I would imagine even the most junior of your journalism students are taught that. One does not, or should not, say such things lightly. Given your stated credibility as a journalist and professor of journalism (which we see listed clearly below your post on TOP), I would think this sort of fact-checking would be even more important than ever.
You talk about the "chilling effect" that a mention of libel law can create. But lets think for a moment about why libel law exists? Does it not exist to protect us from malicious and, importantly, unsubstantiated charges? So perhaps the courts are not needed in this case but I'd argue that your charges against this group of people were themseves quite chilling. I think one should think long and hard before publishing material that impugns people's reputations. It takes a temendous amount of work to build a credible reputation as a reviewer and I think one who chooses to damage that reputation would not make the choice lightly and/or without significant evidence. To act otherwise is, in my mind, unethical.
I look forward to your responses to these questions and points and I will certainly try to do my part to keep this discussion civil and on-point. I again thank RFF for providing a neutral forum where this can be discussed.
Sean Reid
Last edited by a moderator:
bunkawen14
A Glimpse of the World
Setting the Record Straight
Setting the Record Straight
I have not read in Mr. Reid remarks a commitment to withdrawal of notion of taking legal action. Under the circumstances, I will not be responding further on this matter. No matter what. Some of Mr. Reid's questions strike me as fair and reasonable and worthy of a response - one made without a legal threat, explicit or implied, hanging in the air. As I have already made abundantly clear, my original comments were not made as a journalist, and therefore cannot be held to such standards. If some deem the standards of journalism worthy of discussion, however, what of the standards of product reviewing, about which one might argue far too little has been said?
Setting the Record Straight
I have not read in Mr. Reid remarks a commitment to withdrawal of notion of taking legal action. Under the circumstances, I will not be responding further on this matter. No matter what. Some of Mr. Reid's questions strike me as fair and reasonable and worthy of a response - one made without a legal threat, explicit or implied, hanging in the air. As I have already made abundantly clear, my original comments were not made as a journalist, and therefore cannot be held to such standards. If some deem the standards of journalism worthy of discussion, however, what of the standards of product reviewing, about which one might argue far too little has been said?
This thread is closed except for future posts by Sean and Howard.
Stephen
Stephen
Posted for Sean:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.