Re: [Leica] wrotten journalists??

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Erwin,

You have just perfectly described the situation of the vast majority of
journalists, whatever the domain they cover :-(

I am a free-lance journalist and I HATE orders that require a lot of
research and value-added work when they are paid by the line and when
those lines are few. I LOVE press conference reports, interviews, case
studies, because they do not require as much time and therefore bring
much more money. 

That said, the value-added research is sometimes paid by the hour, and
that does change the situation. 

But whatever order I take, I execute it as professionally, completely
and honestly as I can. I can testify that all of the colleagues I know
in my field of work are just as dedicated (and often more). I have been
chief-editor of a specialised magazine (IT) here in Belgium during 5
years, and have only once encountered a suppression of advertisement
budget due to an article content. The vast majority of advertisers
prefer dealing with a magazine that has credibility than dealing with a
magazine that simply repeats the slogans of the mar-com guys, even if
that supposes arguing and the possibility of loosing such an argument.

My work has also made me familiar with the enormous variety of realities
that are beneath what ends up being published as a "test".

It is therefore interesting to find out how the logistics are organised
on a magazine-to-magazine basis or even on a test-to-test basis:
outsourced or not ? 'too new to be true' or not ? publicised procedures
or not ? credibility record of the test lab ? This is what I like about
the CdI team and general way of dealing with the test issues. Even if I
have learned through you that they are not a bible either.

Those are legitimate caveats. Which do not prejudge about the honesty or
the competency of the writers, considered as professional journalists,
and rightly so. And which do not justify a-priori rejection of test
results when they are related and dicussed here in the LUG or elsewhere.

Thanks anyway for a very objective description of the situation.

Alan


imxputs wrote:
> 
> Now the typical magazine-contributor or journalist. He/she must produce x
> pages of editorial content per month about topics or products that are news in
> that period. The photographic industry and the press are in a strange deadlock
> situation. When a new product (example a body or lens or film) is introduced
> the  company wants immediate and broad coverage of it by the whole press. That
> gives it a edge to the competition and ensures that as many readers as
> possible will read about it. On the other hand the press wants  newsstand
> headlines as : "the first complete test of ...", "exclusive new product
> already through our lab..".
> That is very legitimate as they need to sell magazines. No magazine will feel
> happy when they test a product two after all other magaznes had their say. The
> readers just do not wnat to buy that issue. (its old stuff). But what is the
> reality bout this mutual understanding. The particular product needs to be
> tested in a short time by many persons. That gives any journalist only a
> fraction of time. I once got a megadollar digital camera that I only could use
> for one day as before me a collegue had already booked it and the next day
> another collegue also needed to write about it. The distributor had small
> amount of samples so a tight schedule was prepared. Any journalist thus had
> one day. Mine came with the memory not erased by my collegue. He had shot
> believe me or not a very small number of pictures of mediocre standard. But
> his testreport was  full of praise. I have refused to do a test under these
> conditions.
> Now in a month a magazine has many products, so combinations are easy. If a
> new lens and a new film and a new body are to be tested, why not combine al
> three in one  test cycle. It is again legitimate, given time and budget
> constraints and industry/competitor pressures.
> Is it good for the comsumer? No not at all. But we all want news fast.
> Consider the typical LUG pattern when a new Leica product is announced. We all
> want instant reports about its quality and a long series of qestions about how
> this product compares to other products will be posted. The new 2/90 M apo
> will arrie in the shops after summer 1999. But we all need the testresults
> NOW.
> 
> Typically a contributor/journalist will spend at most a day or less on a
> product test. Remember he/she is paid per page. If you have to spend a full
> week for a serious analysis, but your editor gives you only two pages edtorial
> space, what do you do? A week labor is then just too much, so what happens is
> a let us see what we can do approach.
> Now some writers/testers are very good and some are not so good. That reflects
> in the results obviously.
> I am critical of lens test reports because I know how many of them are
> conducted and I know the persons behind them. Alan is right that they try to
> do the best job they can, but with all pressures and constraines as mentioned,
>  the usual pattern is a middle of the road report, so no one can accuse you of
> any errors. The famous MTF graphs are an example. They are generated in
> surprisingly short time and can be commented upon  again in a short time.
> 
> So here we have a situation where no one in particular or anyone in general is
> to be blamed. The press should withstand the pressure to publish asap to be
> ahead of the competion. The consumers should vote with their feet for these
> magazines with the most reflective and laborious reports and refuse to cite
> the others. The industry should provide generous and unbased support to help
> magazines with quality reviews.
> 
> Erwin