Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote: > > Yes, > That is true they do not want to offend the hand that feeds them, but > magazines do not "jimmy" the charts....<snip>.... Peter, I would write "most" magazines: I'm sure there are cases of advertiser pressure, lack of technology means or incompetence here and there. But you are right in reacting to the a-priori rejection that seems dominant in this list. For the rest, one may, like Erwin, challenge test procedures and criteria, but I find it very strange the way some of us reject test articles as a whole by insinuating that the editors and labs are crooked and/or incompetent and that their considerations are worthless as soon as they are not sufficiently laudative for the revered L brand. My point of view is that those articles (and the people who produce them) should be considered with the same respect and confidence as articles written by any journalist in other fields. Honesty, competence and deontology are not absent from the scene of the specialised press. So, dismissing those professionals or their work with low end innuendo is an insult to the whole journalist profession (that includes photojournalists ;-) ). Example of such innuendo : "maybe they're more friendly to Leica now, because we see occasional Leica ads in magazines these days". Each of us should remain critical, cross examine test results, find failures in concrete procedures (thanks Erwin!) or in precisely quoted editorial logic but none of us should allow himself to post offending categorical rejections of the work of mostly very dedicated journalists and testers. The LUG is a good place to scrutinize those articles and tests, and confront them to each other and to daily experience. Alan