http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=711&u=/usatoday/20030521/tc_usatoday/5175702&printer=1

Finally, somebody likes it! This is the only positive review so far, isn't it?

Vladimir.

AS I suspected-a consumer report---I wouldn't buy based on this---wait until the pros get it in their hands---

So does the New York Times. The review is a good example of what happens when enthusiasm exceeds experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/technology/circuits/22stat.html

It's all JVC's PR work. They distribute press releases, have their ad agency talk to the magazine's advertising department, remind them how much Matsushita spent on advertising, the ad department talks to the chief editor, then an editor gets invited for a private demo. They send a limo to get him, then do their demonstration under controlled conditions, may not even play the recorded tape, just feed the camcorder to a tweaked up HD monitor. Most of the time it's wining and dining, PR bull, then a short demo. They may even have a Sony tweaked-up-the-other-way camera for A-B comparison. The editor knows what to write so he gets the next job. Did you ever notice how the digital cameras, speakers, or cars with the most advertising get better reviews, then Consumer Reports says the opposite.

(a little exaggerated)

Hey the clips I downloaded looks pretty damn good. It was a shot of a jelly fish and the sharpness is great.

I disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY! I work in the media, and here's a little story.

We sell ad time to a phone company (not a major, one of those "you'll save money going with us"), a lot of time; then, one day, our consumer reporter does a story on them. They're being investigated! Do you honestly think that company called us up and reminded us how much money they spent on ad time? NO! I think their problem was settled and they began advertising again. I don't remember all the details, but that proves, ethically speaking, NO advertiser can tell the media what the media should do. Unless it reveals some big secret, like, "An inside look at how the new JVC HD camera works." That might piss off JVC. :-)

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : It's all JVC's PR work. They distribute press releases, have their ad agency talk to the magazine's advertising department, remind them how much Matsushita spent on advertising, the ad department talks to the chief editor, then an editor gets invited for a private demo. They send a limo to get him, then do their demonstration under controlled conditions, may not even play the recorded tape, just feed the camcorder to a tweaked up HD monitor. Most of the time it's wining and dining, PR bull, then a short demo. They may even have a Sony tweaked-up-the-other-way camera for A-B comparison. The editor knows what to write so he gets the next job. Did you ever notice how the digital cameras, speakers, or cars with the most advertising get better reviews, then Consumer Reports says the opposite.

(a little exaggerated) -->>>

I said "a little exaggerated" :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : I said "a little exaggerated" :) -->>>

All the free video magazines have one thing in common: a lot of ad space and mostly large previews of equipment, not full-on reviews. Videomaker has tiny previews but major reviews of new gear in their mag. And last I checked, they don't give subscriptions away of that.

heath

We are not talking about Videomaker magazine but USA Today.

This is not an ideal world and unfortunately reports do get biased -- favorably for the biggeer advertisers.

This is not an ideal world and unfortunately reports do get biased -- favorably for the biggeer advertisers.

Joseph, did you just figure this out and now you just had to share this with us? Thanks for this insightful bit of importance.

Frank, most people who would read the whole thread would understand the meaning.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : I said "a little exaggerated" :) -->>>

All the free video magazines have one thing in common: a lot of ad space and mostly large previews of equipment, not full-on reviews. Videomaker has tiny previews but major reviews of new gear in their mag. And last I checked, they don't give subscriptions away of that.

heath -->>>

DV magazine is free and that's prolly the best video-related publication out there.

The problem with both USA Today and the New York Times in reviewing the new JVC HD camera has nothing to do with advertising.

The folks doing the reviews are the same folks who review the new sound systems and computers and any other electronic gadget that comes down the line. They have limited experience in what they are reviewing and their readers are primarily shooters of home video. Nothing wrong with any of this, of course. Nor is it surprising.

" don't remember all the details, but that proves, ethically speaking, NO advertiser can tell the media what the media should do. "

So one incident involving your own publication proves that all of them are unbiased. I don't think so.

I've got to agree. Some publications are more objective than others, but it's very naive to assume that advertising dollars don't influence coverage, especially in the current economy. How often have you noticed a big ad spread from a company in the same issue that reviews one of its products?

In my own very limited experience, a theatrical publication did a nice write-up about our facilities several years back. Immediately after I was interviewed I was contacted by their marketing department asking whether we wanted to buy advertising, and promising placement on a page next to the story. And of course they also were happy to offer us reprints (at a 'reasonable' cost) which we could use for our own marketing purposes.

I enjoy reading many trade publications, but don't have any illusions about their bias. It's tough out there anymore with advertising revenue way down, so everyone does what they must to survive.

From my experience once the rep gets hold of you and will try to sell you ad space, if you act just a little interested, but will hold on buying the space, you can normally get anything from the publication -- from promoting your product in an article to a whole article about your product or service.

Have no illusions. If you know anyone in advertising, you'll learn some interesting stories, how to be able to get an ad for a lot lower price than an ad agency pays, to getting your products "evaluated" by editors. All you have to do is establish a good relationship, and believe me, the advertising department has a direct connection to the editor in chief.

There is no news that is not biased. This is all subtle. Some editors get promoted, some don't. It all depends on how well they know the game and understand the culture, without talking about it. Remember it officially does not exist. There is no better place to learn the "culture" than in Hollywood. I had a pretty good relationship with my boss on an early job, just out of school. He was pretty open with me. He basically categorized his people into the ones who understand American culture and those who don't. It did not matter if they were Americans or nor. The ones who lied to protect him and the company "understood" and got promoted. Others lost jobs. I left for a better job. But there is no more bull anywhere than in Hollywood -- and in advertising. Just remember -- media's business purpose is not there to bring you news, it is there to sell advertising. And there are some very interesting ways of selling it.

This is way off topic. Please review the camera, not ethics in journalism. Thanks.

The New York Times review was written by David
Pogue. In case you don't know who he is, he used to write a very popular column for MacWorld. He's got tons of Apple-related books to his credit, he's written a handbook on iMovie2. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture....this guy knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately for some of you who always see the glass as half empty, he likes the camera!

Mr. Pogue is a excellent writer and certainly qualified to review cameras for the New York Times. If the reviews don't meet your guidelines for technical merits and specifications, I suggest you consider the writers intended audience.

Last warning, review the camera, not the review.

well, since the thread topic was the review... i dont get why there is a problem discussing the review.

well, since the thread topic was the review... i dont get why there is a problem discussing the review

Because this is the GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U camcorder forum, and it is NOT intended as a soap box stand for a character assassination on a writer who writes for a National newspaper!

Thread locked. If you want to talk about reviews rather than cameras, take your posts to The TOTEM Poll: Totally Off Topic, Everything Media (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=3). But you still have to play nice.