sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #161 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have read the posts on TOP and this thread and the one on GETDPI and frankly I am puzzled by Sean's reaction and in particular Sean's reaction against TOP. I know there are a lot of attorneys that post in this forum and I am one of them. I can also say that I don't see any basis for a law suit against TOP or even Howard but there will be another attorney that will. I like Sean's work and his reviews and I am a subscriber. However, I do think he should rethink his relationship to Leica. As a government employee our rules of ethics state that we cannot engage in any activity that would give rise to the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. In other words it doesn't have to be a real conflict of interest only that others would see it as such to be a breach. Having worked on both sides of the issue in former jobs I fully understand the way companies think. Even buying you dinner and drinks is enough to buy me the benefit of a doubt when you might not give it to me otherwise. That's why salesman have expense accounts. If it didn't pay off companies wouldn't spend it. I think the point Howard was raising is that it gives the appearance of favoritism whether the individual reviewer stays objective or not. I think Sean does a better than average job from my reading of his reviews; however, once you know that the company has paid for a trip and given him a review camera you can't help but wonder is he telling me everything bad he knows or is he giving the company the benefit of the doubt. That can be as simple as is the flaw I'm seeing a one off or is it likely in other cameras, oh it is probably just due to be a pre-production unit and then never reporting it. Don't get me wrong I AM NOT SAYING SEAN DOES OR WOULD DO THIS. I am saying that is what taking favors can lead to in a persons mind. The next question is how should a reviewer deal with this problem and still not be scooped by the competition? You can do like Consumer's Reports and wait until you can buy a unit commercially or you can do like many magazine reviewers do. 1. State up front that the company has provided you with a review unit. 2. Publicly publish and state that you accept review units with no guarantee that you will write a favorable review and that your review will be your honest opinion and judgment of what you observe. 3. You do not accept trips, meals, hotels or drinks for any item to be reviewed as they give the appearance of a conflict of interest. and finally 5. You disclose to your readers any bias or predisposition you have toward a product up front. Last but not least you return any reviewed item or purchase it at the fair market price so you avoid the appearance of being bought. Does this guarantee a fair and unbiased review? No but it helps. John, Quite simply, if a reviewer is not honest then he's not honest. That doesn't change because he meets with Leica in Germany. If he's honest, the same applies. Again, there's nothing about a press trip and some meeting which would cause a reputable reviewer to risk his reputation. I'm sorry to hear that you worry if I'm keeping dark secrets about the M9 but (as you should know already) I am not. Moreover, I see more discussion of whatever weaknesses the camera may have in my review than in any other I've read so far. Does the evidence support the various attacks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here The Sour Grapes Duo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Vivek Iyer Posted September 14, 2009 Share #162 Posted September 14, 2009 A stunt by whom? Have I published something about being sued by Mike? By all parties concerned. The seminal point from H.French (which got highlighted because of this thread and similar threads elsewhere) remains valid. sdai's post (20.04) explains the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #163 Posted September 14, 2009 If social media really works (I'm not fully convinced yet), this thread has the potential for a little PR crisis at Leica. At a time, where the company needs it the least. Sean, please consider this when making your next steps. Your reviews are far ahead of the rest. They have to be, because your the only one who gets paid by his readers. That last part is quite true and I try to never forget it. My first steps weren't quite as Mike has stated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #164 Posted September 14, 2009 Agree. You're still a young publisher, Sean . Believe this old one, your best defence lies in the quality of your work. Thanks, I'm counting on that (including the M8 reviews). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 14, 2009 Share #165 Posted September 14, 2009 That last part is quite true and I try to never forget it. My first steps weren't quite as Mike has stated. this is turning into a comedy, free access provided. please keep up the great show. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #166 Posted September 14, 2009 The accidental and totally innocent victim of that is Sean Reid. We, his subscribers, know very well that his reviews are of highest standards of integrity. Unfortunately the couple of hundred of us (?) is not a significant enough number. Sean made a mistake trying to counter what he felt as an attack on his integrity by publicizing the case here. This is a losing war because the vast majority do not know his writings. The biggest mistake is however the lawsuit (if true). The mainstream press will concentrate on "Reviewers like Leica--too much?" type of headlines. And how much were the free lunches. The one who started this mess, Leica AG, should step in now and avert the looming disaster. And the involved gentlemen would better spend their time giving photo workshops to underpriviledged kids than in court. Sean for his part might consider opening up his site for a limited time for everybody to see the evidence. Hi, About 10,000 people read the site but a lot more than that are on the web. The attacks usually seem to come from the people who haven't read the site. The whole lawsuit things isn't real. I never told Mike that I was going to sue him and sooner or later I hope he clarifies that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #167 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is exactly the thinking that brought about this "sourgrapes" wrath and the stunt. Don't tick them "reviewers" off! Otherwise.... What stunt and conducted by whom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted September 14, 2009 Share #168 Posted September 14, 2009 ... I've long had trouble taking Mr. Puts seriously but he just dropped another notch. Cheers, And I like what he writes and think he is quite competent. But the rest of this thread and the discussion on dpreview.com are really entertaining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted September 14, 2009 Share #169 Posted September 14, 2009 this is turning into a comedy, free access provided. please keep up the great show.peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted September 14, 2009 Share #170 Posted September 14, 2009 I was going to stay out of this, but... There seems to be an underlying assumption that Leica paid for somebody's plane ticket. I don't recall reading that anywhere. I do recall David Farkas saying that he used frequent flier miles for his ticket. All the rest is sheer **specubation** . We also don't know that anyone is actually suing anyone. [EDIT: And while I was writing this, Sean has said that he in fact isn't suing anyone.] As long as I know where a writer is coming from, I'm grateful for any detailed information on the M9. I also realize that any information in first-day reviews is preliminary and subject to verification. I do not think we should hold a single-person blog to the same ethical standards as the New York Times--again, as long as we know where the blogger is coming from. In the case of the first-day reviewers of the M9, we know exactly where they're coming from, because they've told us. I would indeed be more skeptical of a review where the company paid the reviewer's plane ticket to a camera's launch event, but merely attending such an event does not disqualify someone from having valid opinions about the camera. I read Sean knowing he's Sean, that he tests exactingly with a real-world photographer's view, that he often prefers RF cameras, that he talks to Leica, and sometimes they listen. I read Mike knowing he's Mike, a guy with a wealth of experience with cameras and photo magazines, who has more than a bit of the wry curmudgeon in him. I'm glad they're both around, and I would be sorry to see either of them hurt or gone from the scene because of this regrettable episode. I might also point out that the release of the M9 might have involved some sleep deprivation on the part of anyone writing about it. C'mon, folks. This ain't Watergate, and nobody involved is Nixon. Or Woodward and Bernstein. Or even "Deep Throat." --Peter ** I am hereby coining the word "specubation" to mean: Endless discussion of groundless and/or unsubstantiated speculation, particularly on the Internet, repeated for the self-gratification of the perpetrators, and tending to generate more heat than light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 14, 2009 Share #171 Posted September 14, 2009 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 14, 2009 Share #172 Posted September 14, 2009 Imants, it doesn't look clean I'll grant you that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted September 14, 2009 Share #173 Posted September 14, 2009 Specubation - beautiful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #174 Posted September 14, 2009 By all parties concerned. The seminal point from H.French (which got highlighted because of this thread and similar threads elsewhere) remains valid. sdai's post (20.04) explains the situation. So you believe we all concocted a conflict as a publicity stunt? Howard's "points" are rather weakened by his having never read the material (or not all of it). His point in theory is interesting but its application was way off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #175 Posted September 14, 2009 this is turning into a comedy, free access provided. please keep up the great show.peter I just got back from an end-of weekend trip to find the huge new drama. Has anyone seen any writing about this stuff on my site? There isn't any and hasn't been. I was on Lake Champlain, it seems, when this all broke out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted September 14, 2009 Share #176 Posted September 14, 2009 How ridiculous. Really. "Blogger vs. Blogger (vs. viewer commenters). Ready, set, FIGHT!" Welcome to the big, bad Interwebs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 14, 2009 Share #177 Posted September 14, 2009 So you believe we all concocted a conflict as a publicity stunt? I believe - and I'm prepared to stand corrected - that the poster was implying that you deliberately overreacted to the post by starting this thread in order to draw attention to your site. That's my reading of it - and remember don't shoot the messenger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted September 14, 2009 Share #178 Posted September 14, 2009 Someone needs to find a major flaw in the M9 before we have a pundplosion. (I am hereby coining the word "pundplosion" meaning the implosion of pundits upon themselves due to a lack of meaningful pundit-meat.) Had the roll out of the M9 gone the way the R8 and M8 did we would be nicely distracted by mechanical and electrical maladies and speculation on the exact date that Leica would close it's doors and hold a garage sale in the parking lot. Instead we are now forced to gaze inward to the unexamined navel of camera reviewing. Best wishes Dan Specubater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #179 Posted September 14, 2009 I believe - and I'm prepared to stand corrected - that the poster was implying that you deliberately overreacted to the post by starting this thread in order to draw attention to your site. That's my reading of it - and remember don't shoot the messenger. No messenger shots fired. Virtually everybody here already knows about my site so a thread like this hardly accomplishes that. I started the thread to counter the comments made by Howard and Erwin. I tried to do that on Mike's site but my comments were not published. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share #180 Posted September 14, 2009 How ridiculous. Really. "Blogger vs. Blogger (vs. viewer commenters). Ready, set, FIGHT!" Welcome to the big, bad Interwebs. It is funny until one is in the middle of it. Howard French attacked the "chosen M9 reviewers" and it was off to the races. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.