Michael Reichman's explananation

[climbing_vine]

In reporting and ethics classes we were told repeatedly, in so many words, that you absolutely never send a story to a source before publication, not even to get the factual content checked. It's considered okay to call a source and read back direct quotes from that source, or to summarize a source's statements, and ask for confirmation.

Don't take this personally, as I don't know you (obviously)--but my experience is that the "real" press is no better about any of these issues than the trade pubs (or bloggers for that matter). Not letting sources check factual information is certainly something that can be debated, but even if one does take that as an iron–clad rule one should still get a fact-check from some third-party who knows what they're talking about. I've been interviewed for stories in a number of well-circulated dailies and weeklies, including one major urban US paper--as well as having first-hand knowledge of stories that I read--and they almost invariably have key facts utterly wrong, quotes mangled, and some made up out of whole cloth. I also did some time in one of the "best" J-schools in the country, at one of the top public Universities, and not only did I not see any surplus of ethics but also a true lack of intellectual curiosity--people just didn't care. And that's the same attitude I've seen from most "real" journalists I've encountered.

Trusting a "real" journalist, in other words, is just as questionable as trusting a trade pub journalist. Let's not get on any high horses here.

 

[J. Borger]

Reichmanns statements make his position worse for me ... what he has done was wrong in the first place .... but when faced with the consequences of his OWN decision pointing at another (Leica) to clean his own back is as low as it gets in my book! A gentleman had kept his mouth and faced the consequences.
Traitors are worse than cheaters in my textbook!

I can understand he was overwhelmed by the quality of the camera (so am i) and wrote a positive review despite the issues though. So he should stand for that instead of pointing to others ......disgusting!

 

[jobo]

I don' t think DPR gets kudos for being objective - in fact they are being pretty critical of Askley on the DPR forums.

(delurk)
Although he seems pretty critical himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6144038.stm
(If it is not just another troll commenting in his name 😕)

/Jobo
(relurk)

 

[jaapv]

I may be a suspiscious person, but somehow that comment does not seem to be on the same track as the one on his website. And I doubt any serious reviewer would enter into any internet discussion that way....
btw Reichmanns excuse curls my toes as well. 🙁