Category Archives: Hall of Shame

The real stinkers

Canon and Goebbels

Imitating the Great Liar

That infamous master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, remarked that if you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Generations of politicians, lawyers and marketers (many of these know all about lying, of course) have taken that to heart, none more than Canon in their advertisement for their latest consumer grade DSLR. This sells for $750. Doubtless a competent and effective tool and you can see their slick ad here.

But that’s not the point. Clearly the TV ad is advertising their inexpensive mass market camera body.

No. What gets my goat is that there’s another video wherein Canon prides itself on explaining just how the ad was made – the second one of the choices on the right. A minute or so into it and we are told that no fewer than ten Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III cameras were used by the pros to take the snaps in the ad video. Last I checked those run $7,800 a pop or some ten times the cost of the featured product.

So how, pray, do pictures taken on a $7,800 camera end up misrepresented as having been taken on a consumer DSLR one tenth of the cost? And why, if the new cheap model is so good, was it not used to take the snaps in the ad? Never mind the carefully chosen words in the above (“….real photographs taken by Canon digital SLR cameras….”) the opening shot of the ad shows Mrs. Housewife clearly using the consumer DSLR, immediately cutting to the snaps taken by pros using the top of the line $8k honker. Not that you would know, of course. Anyone watching the ad would conclude exactly what Canon and its sleazy US management and lawyers intend – that all the pictures you see were taken on the camera shown.

Shame on you, Canon.

There goes another $50,000

Who wrote this claptrap?

Sometimes you have to think that anyone can make a living in the great country that is the USA. After all, Kodak just paid some fool in advertising to blow $50,000 of their rapidly disappearing shareholder’s equity to run this monumental piece of garbage in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Let’s pause to analyze what is wrong:

  • The audience demographic is completely wrong
  • There’s not a product in sight
  • There is no message
  • When you read that “The emotional truth of pictures is under attack”, you quickly conclude that the best use for this page is as a barf bag

You can only agree with the second paragraph. As have the markets:

But worst of all, Kodak, what on earth was wrong with that brilliant little ditty you paid copywriters for a hundred years ago? It goes something like this:

“You take the pictures. We do the rest”

Simple. Magic. Still works well. Saves ink and shareholders’ money, too. Shame on you, Kodak.

Leica’s Watergate

Just another case of a lack of journalistic integrity?.

When I trashed the Panasonic L1 I wrote positively about Michael Reichmann’s objectivity when he wrote about this camera on his web site.

I now have no reason to any longer think that Reichmann is an objective writer.

He has admitted (after clicking the link go to the bottom) that, in ‘reviewing’ the Leica M8 he pulled critical comments from his piece as requested by the Leica Company who had loaned him the camera. It is possible that many who based their purchase decision on his purportedly objective review would have refrained from buying the camera had these comments not been censored.

While he has since bought an M8, I assume using his own money, the reality is he allowed his objectivity to be irrevocably compromised, in this writer’s eyes, by the provision of a free loaner, trading it for self aggrandisement that comes from being one of the favored few to be graced with a pre-production M8. “Look how important I am. Leica gave me a free loaner.” Psychic payola, and good value, had it worked for Leica. They didn’t even have to write a check. In the event, collusion between manufacturer and ‘reviewer’ has, in this case, hurt both.

Had Mr. Recihmann published his adverse findings, explaining that Leica told him they had fixed the problem (they have not) that would have been quite different. In that case he could have stated that he would verify such claims in a follow-up to his review.

As long time readers of this journal know, there is no earthly chance that Yours Truly would ever be given anything free by any manufacturer to ‘review’, as a manufacturer’s publicity machine is not intended to spread truth, justice and the American Way. Rather, its sole intent, which is fine with me, is to sell products. Just don’t expect me to write manufacturer-censored reviews under the guise of objectivity.

You may check my ethics policy by clicking ‘Author and ethics’, below.

The closing three sentences of Reichmann’s apologia are breathtaking and I quote – my underscore. I quote, in case they should one day disappear from his site – please read his whole piece to put these in perspective by clicking on the link in the third paragraph above:

“But, in the end I would do what I did again, simply because I felt that potential owners needed to know what I had learned in my testing, without delay. And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that’s the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said.”

If you can reconcile the first and second sentences, please educate me by leaving a comment, below.

So now that you understand Mr. Reichmann’s “….proper way of dealing with manufacturers….” you will know better than to believe anything he ever writes again on his Luminous Landscape web site.

Mr. Reichmann, let me put you out of your naïveté. A manufacturer’s goal in a capitalist system is to get journalists to write what is best for the profitability of the manufacturer. A journalist’s goal is to write unconflicted truth as he sees it, pulling no punches with regard to material facts.

And here is what you really meant to write, and do feel free to copy and paste it into your column – no attribution needed:

“Dear Luminous Landscape readers – I made a serious ethical and journalistic error in withholding information regarding product defects in the new Leica M8. I did this at the request of the Leica Company who had given me a free loan of the camera. In doing so, I made a material misrepresentation to you, my readers. I have seriously compromised my journalistic integrity and accept full responsibility to all of you who bought the camera on my recommendation and now find that, had my findings been uncensored, they would have changed your purchase decision.”

Trust, once lost, Mr. Reichmann, is seldom regained. Print a proper retraction on the lines of the above and I will be happy to publish it here.

As for Leica, the company may have knowingly released a faulty product. If that is the case, the class action lawyers will take care of them, assuming there’s enough money left there to make the suit worthwhile. Why, even Mr. Reichmann would collect something in the settlement.

Political photography

Anti-American photojournalist’s writings exposed.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, art critic Richard B. Woodward writes about how famous Magnum photographer Thomas Hoepker fabricated a story to suit his anti-American mind set. No surprise that German Hoepker proudly boasts of making his home on Manhattan’s upper east side.

The picture in question shows five people in Brooklyn chatting on the waterfront on September 11, 2001, while smoke billows from the World Trade Centers behind them.

Specifically, and scandalously, Hoepker wrote:

“It’s possible they lost people and cared, but they were not stirred by it.”

And here’s more of his tripe:

“Four and a half years later, when I was going through my archive to assemble a retrospective exhibition of my work from more than 50 years, the color slide from Brooklyn suddenly seemed to jump at me. Now, distanced from the actual event, the picture seemed strange and surreal. It asked questions but provided no answers. How could disaster descend on such a beautiful day? How could this group of cool-looking young people sit there so relaxed and seemingly untouched by the mother of all catastrophes which unfolded in the background? Was this the callousness of a generation, which had seen too much CNN and too many horror movies?”

Needless to add, Hoepker’s fraud was aided, abetted and amplifed by none other than, yes, you guessed it, The New York Times, whose Frank Rich called the image “shocking”. You can imagine how much research went into that opinion. Any publication with ethics policies would fire Rich for his drivel; I imagine a promotion is probably in store for him for getting circulation and anti-American feelings up.

Hoepker’s fraud was exposed when none other than one of the people portrayed in the picture wrote to Slate magazine stating:

“Had Hoepker walked fifty feet over to introduce himself he would have discovered a bunch of New Yorkers in the middle of an animated discussion about what had just happened.”

Subsequently, the woman in the picture – a professional photographer, no less – also contacted Slate with a poignant and moving rebuttal.

The Wall Street Journal writes succinctly that “In effect, (Hoepker) has Photoshopped (the image) in his mind so that it now belongs neatly in a more contemporary storyline of this nation’s culpability for world unease”.

Well written.

While I disagree with Woodward’s earlier statement that digital trickery has “…not eroded the truth value of photographs…” – I have shown many examples of Photoshop fraud in this journal which should make everyone sceptical – it is heartening to see people taking a stand against America’s detractors, not least against those who would, in the same breath, proffer inane apologia for all that was good and great about all those moral German industrialists during WWII. You can substitute ‘German industrialists’ with ‘terrorists’ and ‘mass murderers’, and it works just as well.

Update 9/102014: Hoepker’s cynical exploitation of tragedy for personal gain, his self-serving response notwithstanding, is further addressed here.

Update July 12, 2024:

Mercifully Hoepker has finally done the decent thing and passed on to his German heaven. A first for him, doubtless.



A bad man passes.

His crass profit making from one of America’s greatest tragedies confirms that no German should ever lecture Americans on what doing the right thing means. Good riddance.

More lies from CBS

Protect your property by all means, but lie about it?

Hot on the heels of my piece on digital tampering by the news media comes the not-so startling revelation that the people at CBS are at it again.

This time, the purpose of their lies is innocent if no less damnable, namely protecting the image of their $15mm a year teleprompter reader, one Katie Couric.

A picture being worth a thousand words or 15 lbs of fat, I will let the following photograph do my talking for me. Guess which one CBS used in promoting Ms. Couric?

In the same way that they tried suing gun makers for murders committed with their weapons, doubtless that scum bag class known as tort lawyers will be suing Adobe/Photoshop any day now for making it possible to trim off all that fat. The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable, as Wilde once said of fox hunting.