# At last DP Review are honest!



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2016)

So at long last DPR have actually gone public with what many of us have known for a while, they are producers of paid infomercials for Nikon and Amazon. 



> *This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.*



Now I don't have an issue with that, they can be whatever they want, but don't get on your high horse and preach impartial and unbiased opinions on the one hand and work for Nikon and Amazon with the other.


https://www.dpreview.com/videos/5840060247/field-test-action-photography-with-the-nikon-d5-professional-dslr


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 7, 2016)

They also produced a piece sponsored by Sigma. 

I don't see an issue with it, as long as they are honest.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> They also produced a piece sponsored by Sigma.
> 
> I don't see an issue with it, as long as they are honest.



It's like modern politics in the USA world, how can you legitimately separate the money from influencing opinions? How can you honestly expect the same reviewer to be both a paid infomercial presenter for Nikon and offer an impartial comparison between a Nikon and a direct competitor?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2016)

Even better, the criteria they lay out in answer to this question 



> *"How can I trust any content that has been funded directly or indirectly by a sponsor?"*



is


> " If we don't think that a particular piece of video or written content will inform or entertain you we don't publish it"



which is exactly the same thing Ken Rockwell says. At least they are now saying they are on the same page. 

Funny because when I called Rishi an entertainer and a pathetic impartial reviewer recently a few people here got so mad at me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Because he specifically states he is. What about that sentence don't you understand?



> " If we don't think that a particular piece of video or written content will inform _*or entertain*_ you we don't publish it"



Entertainment, by definition, is created by entertainers.

DPR makes money by creating sponsored entertainment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review?
> 
> ...
> 
> Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a _term _for this...



[quote author=Rishi Sanyal @ We're-not-biased-DPR]
This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.
[/quote]

Actually, Rishi...there are several terms for this. Biased is the mildest. Blatant liar is another applicable term. Yes, I know that if you reply at all, you'll argue that 'we clearly label sponsored pieces and anything not so-labeled is not influenced by outside parties.' Blah blah blah. DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Amazon makes money through sales, not entertainment.



I guess you're talking about amazon.dilbertland. Meanwhile, in the real world...


----------



## pwp (Sep 8, 2016)

Slaves to the Amazon/Nikon payroll? Well at least we've got that out in the open. Credibility zero.

The now proven incorrect perception of DP Review being an independent and impartial review site has been shredded, Rishi's latest blatant indiscretions being the nail in the coffin. 

Other than picking up the odd bit of industry news, visiting DP Review is largely a waste of time, unless you're a fan of infomercials.

-pw


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 8, 2016)

And suddenly I just gained a whole lot of respect for dpr. I DON'T CARE if a reviewer is biased. IF he/she admits it. The reality is that we are ALL biased in someway or another. The most biased individual is the one dishonest about his/her own bias. The most trustworthy reviewer is the one that is honest about his/her biases in my opinion.

This is not now credibility zero for dpr- their credibility was already at zero. I've not met anyone who took their reviews seriously. On the contrary, this is credibility INCREASE. Everyone already knew they were biased. It was beyond blatantly obvious. What frustrated the h*** out of me is how they denied repeatedly it in face of all the evidence. 

Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> And suddenly I just gained a whole lot of respect for dpr. I DON'T CARE if a reviewer is biased. IF he/she admits it. The reality is that we are ALL biased in someway or another. The most biased individual is the one dishonest about his/her own bias. The most trustworthy reviewer is the one that is honest about his/her biases in my opinion.
> 
> This is not now credibility zero for dpr- their credibility was already at zero. I've not met anyone who took their reviews seriously. On the contrary, this is credibility INCREASE. Everyone already knew they were biased. It was beyond blatantly obvious. What frustrated the h*** out of me is how they denied repeatedly it in face of all the evidence.
> 
> Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.



As I said, they can be whatever they want to be and I have no problem with that. But don't argue ad nauseum you are unbiased and independent whilst on location filming a paid and sponsored infomercial!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.



While I agree it was honest to disclose the source of bias (and that's a good thing) the _best_ thing would have been to not lie by previously claiming to be unbiased. 

I wonder...if Rishi has been on Nikon's payroll for long...if Nikon's remuneration caused his bias...or if he was chosen to write on behalf of Nikon because of his manifest bias...in other words...

_Which came first?_


----------



## tr573 (Sep 8, 2016)

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat

"This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon. What does this mean?"

:


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2016)

tr573 said:


> https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat
> 
> "This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon. What does this mean?"
> 
> :



It means they are not impartial, it means they are not fair and balanced, it means none of their "journalistic" pieces have any validity or merit to them even if they are right. 

It means pay to play.

Canon paid up for the 80D and it got a good review. Nikon paid for the D5 and it got an amazing review and several very favorable comparisons. Sigma paid to play, suddenly DPR recommend Sigma. See a pattern?

Again, I don't care if DPR want to be infomercial producers, just don't insult us all with the 'fair unbiased and trustworthy' hollier than thou attitude. They are not journalists, they are entertainers, don't try to claim you are a journalist if you are an entertainer, Hannity doesn't, O'Reilly doesn't, Rishi and the rest of the crew at DPR shouldn't.


----------



## Canoner (Sep 8, 2016)

tr573 said:


> https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat
> 
> "This is sponsored content, created with the support of Canon. What does this mean?"
> 
> :



Here is another sponsered by Canon. No big deal.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4149784482/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-field-test-dpreview-goes-to-the-rodeo


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 8, 2016)

Wow... You'd think Rishi forced himself on someone's wife and then burned their vintage concert t-shirt collection while punching their dying mother in the face. So much animosity and hatred here.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> Wow... You'd think Rishi forced himself on someone's wife and then burned their vintage concert t-shirt collection while punching their dying mother in the face. So much animosity and hatred here.



I don't see annimosity and hatred. I see an expose of a very well educated and intelligent poster who claimed to be an unbiased journalist with the weight and power of DPR behind him. 

To me it feels like his magisterial and magical cloak of superiority has been pulled away and he has been exposed as a sad little liar.

Again, I have absolutely no issue with him being an entertainer, but to try to pull people down who point out his bias as he declaims himself independent and fair whilst out filming for a Nikon infomercial is about as big a double standard as you are going to get outside of politics. 

For one of the biggest photo sites most prominent 'journalists' to have been shown to be doing this is noteworthy.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.



Does this apply outside of photo gear reviews? E.g., if a pharma company pays a medical clinic to test a drug, must we presume the result is biased?


----------



## physioz (Sep 8, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.
> ...



Well, if there happen to be 'statistical outliers' showing less than positive outcomes for the drug vs placebo what do you think might happen to them? or adverse events? You can answer this for yourself ...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 8, 2016)

physioz said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No, I don't think I can answer the question, but I can ask it.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 8, 2016)

Now if only we could get Tony Northrup to admit his content is produced primarily for entertainment value.

(I do find his videos useful sometimes, but the videos are funny just as often as they are informative.)


----------



## tr573 (Sep 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0287044739/canon-eos-80d-field-test-barney-builds-a-boat
> ...



The implication you were giving is that they are specifically biased in favor of Nikon, versus their "Direct Competitor" which is of course, Canon. The 80D got a "good" review, pretty much the same as the 70D or any other Canon camera they give a good review to. They still slagged hardcore on the tracking AF. 



privatebydesign said:


> Now I don't have an issue with that, they can be whatever they want, but don't get on your high horse and preach impartial and unbiased opinions on the one hand and work for Nikon and Amazon with the other.





privatebydesign said:


> It's like modern politics in the USA world, how can you legitimately separate the money from influencing opinions? How can you honestly expect the same reviewer to be both a paid infomercial presenter for Nikon and offer an impartial comparison between a Nikon and a direct competitor?



Now , I would counter this by saying since Canon also pays them to produce sponsored content featuring Canon cameras, any anti-Canon bias that exists there has nothing to do with the infomercials. (and I do agree that the shenanigans with softening the blow about the D5's dynamic range were pretty ridiculous. They have harped on it in just about every Canon review for years, and suddenly it's not a big deal.) 

Edit: So if you want to say that the paid content means they have no credibility, fine. I know sponsored content makes people suspicious. But don't say it's the source of bias in favor of one brand, when they have sponsored content from their competitors also.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 8, 2016)

tr573 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...


May be one pays more than other. They are not dumb to bite the hands that feed. It is like reading car magazines which needs to think about their advertising interests. Which reviewer buys their own equipment and provides reviews?


----------



## tr573 (Sep 8, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I am not doubting that sites that receive loaner equipment for reviews are subject to scrutiny on how negative they can be in a review. It's the same with video game reviews, or cars as you said, or anything else.

What I am doubting in the extreme is that Nikon is paying for anti canon sentiment at DPR. I think that's looking for boogeymen in the closet. It's silly. If Canon thought there was some pervasive anti-canon attitude there, paid for by their chief rival, they wouldn't pay to produce any sponsored content with them at all now would they? They'd pull all their press privileges and just be done with it.


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Sep 8, 2016)

Rishi is in love...

Rishi is a techno-geek, specifically, a camera techno-geek. He is just in love with the technical extremities that the Sony sensor and the D5 AF (under some use cases) have and not many real users care about.

So, don't tease him.


----------



## tr573 (Sep 8, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> No one said Nikon paying for anti canon stuff.



You didn't, but I think you need to re-read the first page of this thread before saying no one did


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2016)

tr573 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > No one said Nikon paying for anti canon stuff.
> ...



There is a huge difference between "anti Canon stuff" and overselling a rival feature (3D tracking when compared to rivals), under reporting a failing that previously was a core requirement (D5 DR) or feint praise and misleading headlines. Is a camera with 1/10 stop less DR really only "catching up" or are they essentially the same?

I am not paranoid, I don't wear a tinfoil hat. I like my reporting to come from independent relatively even keeled sources. If I want a liberal leftist take I'll look at CNN or NBC, if I want something with a right leaning I know to look at the Wall Street Journal or Yahoo News, but I know what to expect.

I don't care where the bias comes from, I just need to know it is there. I now know DPR will write whatever they feel will "entertain" us, which doesn't mean that entertainment is worthless, it is just viewed from a different perspective.

What got my goat about Rishi specifically was his adamant insistence that he was not biased and he answered to no paymaster (be that Canon or Nikon or Sigma et al), all whilst planning or being on a paid Nikon infomercial shoot. That grates and strikes to the very heart of credibility and professed independence.

Let me put this another way.


> I work for a cement review company, we publish our results and reviews on a website. My review company, whilst not entirely obvious, is actually owned by a cement sales company, I don't know how much they make selling one cement brand over another, or maybe I do, I'm not telling you. I am independent, I can write what I want, I am unbiased (you can trust me on that).
> 
> As well as reviews I make infomercials for specific cement companies, they fly me all over the country and not only pay me they feed me well and entertain me, I love those company 'jollies'. While filming them (which is great for my profile as a media creator) I work alongside the company reps and we do our best to show the products in their best light, obviously we never mention any issues or highlight where a competitor might actually be 'better' suited, we don't label our infomercials as such particularly well, but it is there, trust me, I am unbiased. Oh, if this works out one company has suggested they would like to do a lot more of these but I am not telling you which company, trust me I am unbiased.



Do you trust the findings of that review site as unbiased when they contradict a horrible looking website made by a cement user who publishes the results he gets from actually using the different brands of cement that he paid for?


----------



## tr573 (Sep 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Do you trust the findings of that review site as unbiased when they contradict a horrible looking website made by a cement user who publishes the results he gets from actually using the different brands of cement that he paid for?



I do not trust them as wholly unbiased, but neither do I think they are favoring one company who pays them to create a review over another company who pays them to create a review. I can find two recent Canon sponsored videos to one Nikon on their site, which makes me lean even more that this sponsored content has nothing to do with the fact that they slag on Canon's tracking in every review.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2016)

tr573 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Do you trust the findings of that review site as unbiased when they contradict a horrible looking website made by a cement user who publishes the results he gets from actually using the different brands of cement that he paid for?
> ...



Semantics. You can conclude what you want, but you can't do that from a position of knowledge. 

Do you know how much the company paid for one infomercial against the amount the other company paid for two? Do you know what is going on in the background? 

The key part, for me, is that Rishi banged on relentlessly about how unbiased he was, which I took exception to as his writing reflected clear bias. You now agree that within the scenario he works you do not trust that output as wholly unbiased. My point is made.

The extent that the bias extends is debatable but the existence of it isn't, despite the claims of the 'independent reviewer'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.
> ...



Of course it applies outside of photo gear reviews (which I why I stated 'buying' an opinion piece is a quintessential _example_ of bias). 

In your specific example, probably not too much. The reason is that trials (both pharma- and government-sponsored) have their data monitored by an indepentent board (DSMBs) who are the first to be unblinded (and before that, neither the trial physicians nor the sponsors should know who is on active drug). Those montitoring boards are the ones who stop trials early, for example, usually due safety issues / adverse events that occur, but in some cases because the drug is working well enough that it becomes unethical to continue giving patients placebo instead of active. Now, where you _can_ see bias in the process is with the sharing of the results, since that is under the sponsors' control and negative data are not always shared (although in recent years, most large pharma are chosing to publish/present the data on failed trials).

So in the case of a pharma sponsor inducing bias into the conduct of a trial, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The tree you should be barking up is not R&D, but for marketed drugs. For example, kickbacks to increase prescription rates, all-expense-paid informational meetings held at Caribbean resorts, or even local small group "medical education" sessions like this one:







Fortunately, that sort of thing is being curbed by the Sunshine Act (which is a good thing, but in some cases it goes to the extremes, for example with the more strict Massachusetts counterpart of that legislation, an academic researcher who happens to be a state-licensed clinician and comes in to a pharma company to present his/her scientific data in a seminar has to file paperwork to declare the $4 catered sandwich from the lunch tray).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The key part, for me, is that Rishi banged on relentlessly about how unbiased he was, which I took exception to as his writing reflected clear bias. You now agree that within the scenario he works you do not trust that output as wholly unbiased. My point is made.
> 
> The extent that the bias extends is debatable but the existence of it isn't, despite the claims of the 'independent reviewer'.



^^This.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 9, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DPR (and possibly you, personally, as the author of the piece) accept remuneration to produce content for Nikon. That's the quintessential example of bias, whether or not it's disclosed.
> ...



Yes. Absolutely. that's why there are separate groups that do double-blind randomized controlled tests that involve tens of thousand of people.


----------



## xps (Oct 7, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> And suddenly I just gained a whole lot of respect for dpr. I DON'T CARE if a reviewer is biased. IF he/she admits it. The reality is that we are ALL biased in someway or another. The most biased individual is the one dishonest about his/her own bias. The most trustworthy reviewer is the one that is honest about his/her biases in my opinion.
> 
> This is not now credibility zero for dpr- their credibility was already at zero. I've not met anyone who took their reviews seriously. On the contrary, this is credibility INCREASE. Everyone already knew they were biased. It was beyond blatantly obvious. What frustrated the h*** out of me is how they denied repeatedly it in face of all the evidence.
> 
> Rishi, if you're reading this, that disclosure was the best thing you could have done. Hat off.


+1

No one mentioned Sony as biasing-company


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 7, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Now , I would counter this by saying since Canon also pays them to produce sponsored content featuring Canon cameras, any anti-Canon bias that exists there has nothing to do with the infomercials. (and I do agree that the shenanigans with softening the blow about the D5's dynamic range were pretty ridiculous. They have harped on it in just about every Canon review for years, and suddenly it's not a big deal.)
> 
> Edit: So if you want to say that the paid content means they have no credibility, fine. I know sponsored content makes people suspicious. But don't say it's the source of bias in favor of one brand, when they have sponsored content from their competitors also.



+10


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Semantics. You can conclude what you want, but you can't do that from a position of knowledge.



No-one here can, right!?


----------

