Shutterbug is a special interest photography magazine. Shutterbug publishes a column titled "Digital Help Q&A for Digital Photography" written by David Brooks. In the May 2011 issue, on page 62, a relatively minor error consisting of incomplete and incorrect information about the lack of a fix for a particular problem in the Vista operating system occurred. Jeffrey Sward sent the column author an email with three fixes for this Vista problem. At this point, several action alternatives were available to Mr. Brooks, such as (a) not replying at all or (b) a quick reply such as "thanks for the information, I will investigate," or (c) a reply such as "thanks for the information, I will issue a correction."  Instead, Mr. Brooks chose (d) attack the messenger.   What follows is a veritable text book on how to attempt to avoid responsibility.  Many of the classic responsibility avoidance techniques are present such as changing the subject, blaming someone else, throwing up technical gobbledygook as a smoke screen, character assassination, and recounting irrelevant history rather than addressing the issue at hand.   

From: "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>
Subject: Actual Fixes for the Vista Color Management ICC Display Problems May 2011 page 62 Facts Are Facts
Date: 04/05/2011 21:01:15
To: <editorial@shutterbug.com>, <goofotografx@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>

The response on page 62 of the May 2011 issue under the heading, "Facts Are Facts" is incomplete and incorrect.
 
Please note the following facts which have been overlooked.  Here are three ways which the color management display ICC problem can be fixed in Vista.
 
(1) The cognoscenti turn off the Vista User Account Controls completely.  There are many blog posts on how to turn this off.  With User Account Controls off, there will never be an annoying "is this ok" dialog box, thus there will never be a screen dim, and thus there will never be the trigger for the bug.
 
(2) Apply the fix provided by Microsoft at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951537/en-us.  Note: this fix was located by following the link to http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Vista's_New_Color_Management_System_-_WCS, which was found in the article by David Brooks located here http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0607microsoft/index1.html. 
 
(3) Do not rely on any third party software to set the default color profile.  Have your color management software create an ICC profile.  Copy the ICC file to c:\windows\system32\spool\drivers.  From => personalization => display settings => select the monitor => advanced settings => color management => color management => add => add your icc profile => select your icc profile => click set as default profile.  In this manner, you will be directly setting the default monitor profile.  This feature existed in xp, vista, and windows 7.  The following post explains how this feature works in windows 7:  http://www.slagermanphoto.com/blog/2010/09/22/windows-color-management-solution/
 
ANY of the above three solutions will fix the "bug."  Doing all three will expand your changes of correct results.
 
So, Einstein, before you start disseminating incorrect information, first do your homework.  Of course, there may be a reason why you are writing about photography and not writing about software development.

-----------------------------------

From: "Schaub, George" <George.Schaub@sorc.com>
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Actual Fixes for the Vista Color Management ICC Display Problems May 2011 page 62 Facts Are Facts
Date: 04/05/2011 21:01:24
To: "Jeffrey Sward"<js@jeffreysward.com>

Hi I am out of the office today and on the road for the remainder of the week. I will be checking email in the evenings so please be patient if you have to wait a bit for a response. best george schaub

---------------------------------------------

From: "David B. Brooks" <goofotografx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Actual Fixes for the Vista Color Management ICC Display Problems May 2011 page 62 Facts Are Facts
Date: 04/05/2011 22:38:28
To: "Jeffrey Sward"<js@jeffreysward.com>

Jeffrey Sward,

If you read what you wrote, you should realize you get one primary factor wrong. The user on-screen alert that darkens the screen turns off, display calibration, which is set during the bout-up process by an .EXE file. This is separate entirely from color management functions, but is essential because the calibration sets the display to reproduce ICC standard RGB.

The display profile file is the result of measurement of the display's color performance over a wide range of its spectrum compared with the ICC IT-8 reference, and is filed with other profiles in a Color folder in the operating system. It is only a text reference file that color-managed applications refer to such as Adobe Photoshop and many more.

Sorry, Jeffrey you may be right about Vista, but your understanding of color-management is lacking.

Regards, David B. Brooks

----------------------------------------

From: David B. Brooks" <goofotografx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: v1.1 Actual Fixes for the Vista Color Management ICC Display Problems May 2011 page 62 Facts Are Facts
Date: 04/05/2011 22:48:03
To: "Jeffrey Sward"<js@jeffreysward.com>

Jeffery Sward,

To what point Jeffrey, the horse already left the coral so why bother closing the gate, besides the horse is retired and out to pasture. Vista is dead and was declared a failure by Microsoft, replaced by Windows 7. The actual cause of the user information pop-up window removing the display calibration was never repaired by Microsoft in any upgrades offered, and unless you turn off your user security alert in Windows 7, the the display calibration can be defaulted by an on-screen alert. So you give up security warnings to be able to run a calibrated display, that's no a solution, just another problem.

Regards, David B. Brooks

---------------------------

From: "David B. Brooks" <goofotografx@gmail.com>
Subject: Vista
Date: 04/06/2011 11:13:30
To: "Jeffrey Sward"<js@jeffreysward.com>

My apologies if I seemed rude in my replies to you. I am sorry but it was maybe too late in the evening to reply considering I have been dealing the Microsoft Vista issue since spring of 2007 when I wrote my review of the operating system for Shutterbug. I reported the calibration bug that was discovered by Chromix.com in my review and id not recommend user buy and install Vista. Since the I have followed nearly all of the Microsoft releases and no Service Pack fix was issued.

You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable and competent with computers and Windows, but unfortunately most of my readers are primarily photographers and most would not be interested in the kid of bug fixes you recommended. It is beyond their capabilities in most cases.

My short temper on the issue is the result of countless problems like the one referred to in my column; causing users all kinds of hard choices they should not have had to make. But then they are not aware that as photographers they are essentially non-existent to Microsoft whose largest user group are corporations and businesses.

My best wishes, David B. Brooks

------------------------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>
Subject: Incorrect Information in Shutterbug Magazine, Hubris, Avoiding Responsibility, and Unprofessional Behavior
Date: 04/10/2011 23:22:35
To: <goofotografx@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>, <editorial@shutterbug.com>, <George.Schaub@sorc.com>

Thank you for the interesting three replies, all of which have been pasted below, along with my original email.

The point of my original email has been missed, which is surprising from someone claiming preeminent intellectual and subject matter expertise. The following discussion will explain the point of the original email in more detail.

The following statements by David Brooks in the May 2011 issue are flat out incorrect: "This bug [in Vista] was never fixed by Microsoft" and "Vista's apparently could not be repaired until they put in a new user screen warning system in Windows 7."

I spent five minutes of Google research along with actually reading the articles you yourself referenced. I handed you three different fixes for the bug in Vista on a silver platter. You chose to respond to this information by throwing it back in my face with invective and vitriol. Your responses also include tangential technical information which is off subject. In addition to a clear disregard for accurate information, your behavior is rude, offensive, and highly unprofessional.

It does not matter what your opinion of Amiram Stark or me is. You should treat people with respect.

You owe Amiram Stark a written apology in the Shutterbug column. Shutterbug owes its readers a printed response with the correct information about available Vista fixes.

Here are some purposes of a specialty magazine column, of which you are clearly unaware:

1) The purpose of a column in a specialized publication is to provide reader value. Only when value is present will readers continue to subscribe. More subscribers mean higher advertiser rates. Advertiser revenue pays the columnist.
2) Reader value is increased by accurate and complete information.
3) Reader value is decreased by inaccurate information, incomplete information, offensive comments, posturing by the author, invective, and vitriol.

Here is more accurate information addressing the some of the insults which you have hurled in your previous replies:

David Brooks statement: "your understanding of color-management is lacking."

More accurate information: What is your basis for this statement? Did you look at some of the 500 images posted on my web site and detect incorrect color management? Did you Google "Photoshop workflow," notice that my article is usually in the top five results, read the article, and detect incorrect color information? Did you read any of the other technical articles on photographic subjects on my website?

David Brooks statement: "Vista is dead and was declared a failure by Microsoft, replaced by Windows 7"

More accurate information: Very few people in the user community are fond of Vista, myself included. Many people upgrade their OS and hardware on a schedule and must do the best we can on the Vista platform until the next upgrade cycle. As a columnist, your job is to present helpful ideas and fixes for Vista, if you address the subject at all.

David Brooks statement: "The actual cause of the user information pop-up window removing the display calibration was never repaired by Microsoft in any upgrades offered"

More accurate information: I sent three fixes, including one directly created by Microsoft.

David Brooks statement: "So you give up security warnings to be able to run a calibrated display, that's not a solution, just another problem."

More accurate information: Turning off the Vista User Account Controls is an option which has been debated by dozens of technical blogs which I have read, and discussed among many of my colleagues in software development. The consensus is that the annoying User Account Control dialogue will nearly always be accepted, because the end user does not have enough information to make an informed decision. Therefore, turning off the Vista User Account Controls accomplishes both eliminating a useless pop-up and not triggering the ICC bug.

David Brooks statement: "You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable and competent with computers and Windows."

More accurate information: On what basis is this judgment made? The statement as written is highly offensive. I might as well write "David Brooks is obviously somewhat knowledgeable with photography."

David Brooks statement: "most of my readers are primarily photographers and most would not be interested in the kid of bug fixes you recommended. It is beyond their capabilities in most cases."

More accurate information: It is unfortunate that you have such a low opinion of Shutterbug readers. Serious photography was never easy. Serious photography was not easy in the film era. Serious photography is not easy in the digital era. Like it or not, serious photographers today are dependent on operating systems, Photoshop, plug-ins, etc. If your readers are capable of installing and configuring Photoshop, then they are capable of any of the three fixes supplied. Also, it is your job as a columnist to present the appropriate information and let the reader make their own decisions.

David Brooks statement: "photographers they are essentially non-existent to Microsoft whose largest user group are corporations and businesses."

More accurate information: My day job is a software architect for a corporation which has premium support with Microsoft. Surprise surprise Sherlock. Microsoft corporate users are just as non-existent to Microsoft as photographers.

I have sent this email to the Shutterbug editorial email and the previously received email address of the alleged Shutterbug editor George Schaub. The Shutterbug editorial offices are apparently located in Florida. Apparently columnists are freelance contractors at various locations. If Shutterbug has any editorial standards, the editorial standards are not enforced. Shutterbug clearly does not have fact checkers.

Stated more concisely:

I have read Shutterbug articles for several years, and the advertisements are consistently excellent.

This entire document has also been posted at http://www.jeffreysward.com/editorials/hubris.htm.

--------------------------------------

From: "David B. Brooks" <goofotografx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Incorrect Information in Shutterbug Magazine, Hubris, and Unprofessional Behavior
Date: 04/11/2011 09:33:50 To: "Jeffrey Sward"<js@jeffreysward.com>
Cc: "George Schaub" <George.Schaub@sorc.com>, "Andrea Keister" <Andrea.Keister@sorc.com>

Jeffrey Sward,

I am sorry you seem offended. But this is April of 2011 and the Microsoft Vista calibration bug was identified immediately after Vista was released in 2007 and reported in my coverage of the OS in early 2007. Where were you then with your fixes? Windows 7 replaces Vista and has been in use now for over a year, so as far as I am concerned your criticism is a lot of days late and more than a dollar short for those who have suffered because of Vista since it was in use. For many buyers of PC's since early 2007 most sources offered the installation of Windows XP, and Microsoft allowed that option for Vista's entire history of being a new operating system. I and many others recommended installing XP instead of Vista during that period.

But you don't like how I handled the issue . Well that's your problem, because you did not speak up a long time ago when it would possibly have made a difference.

Sincerely,

David B. Brooks

------------------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>
Subject: v3.0 Incorrect Information in Shutterbug Magazine, Hubris, and Unprofessional Behavior
Date: 04/11/2011 21:35:31
To: "David B. Brooks"<goofotografx@gmail.com>
Cc: "George Schaub" <George.Schaub@sorc.com>, "Andrea Keister" <Andrea.Keister@sorc.com>, "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>

The history of a product is unrelated to whether up-to-date information is published about that product at any given point in time.

Specifically, having chosen to write about Vista in May 2011, then complete and accurate information as of May 2011 should be present, regardless of the history of Vista between 2007-2011. If a publication is presenting up-to-date information, it is the responsibility of the columnist to make sure the information is up-to-date, not the reader.

Reputable columnists writing for reputable publications admit their mistakes and take corrective action. Reputable columnists do not attempt to blame the reader for the columnist's mistakes.

I will no longer respond to communication from Mr. Brooks, although I will continue to concatenate his tirades into the chronology of this issue posted on my website. This has become an interesting case study in attempting to avoid responsibility.

The loud reticence of the Shutterbug editorial staff would indicate that Shutterbug does not have standards for factual content and Shutterbug does not have standards for columnist conduct.

--------------------------------------------

From: "Schaub, George" <George.Schaub@sorc.com>
Subject: RE: v3.0 Incorrect Information in Shutterbug Magazine, Hubris, and Unprofessional Behavior
Date: 04/12/2011 04:51:38
To: "Jeffrey Sward"<js@jeffreysward.com>, "David B. Brooks"<goofotografx@gmail.com>
Cc: "Keister, Andrea" <Andrea.Keister@sorc.com>

Hi I am uncertain what "loud reticence" might mean, though I like the turn of phrase, but my job as editor is not to muzzle columnists or edit their opinions out but to allow for a lively debate of issues that might arise. That's the nature of a column, and Mr. Brooks is clearly passionate about this matter, as you are. Thanks for keeping me posted on this debate. best george schaub

George Schaub
Editorial Director:
Shutterbug/www.shutterbug.com/Petersens Photographic Digital Guides
6th floor
261 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10016

-------------------------

From: "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>
Subject: v4.0 Incorrect Information in Shutterbug Magazine, Hubris,and Unprofessional Behavior
Date: 04/12/2011 21:29:04
To: "Schaub, George"<George.Schaub@sorc.com>
Cc: "Keister, Andrea" <Andrea.Keister@sorc.com>, "Jeffrey Sward" <js@jeffreysward.com>, "David B. Brooks" <goofotografx@gmail.com>

Thank you for clarifying the editorial policy.  The clarification is extremely helpful.
 
It may not be the job of the editor to muzzle columnists, but it is certainly the job of the editor to insist that columnists utilize common courtesy.
 
When you allow your columnists to hurl invective and vitriol, avoid the subject at hand, and generally avoid responsibility, the result is not a lively debate.  The result is one-sided character assassination of your readers.
 
It certainly convenient for Shutterbug that a printed heading reading "Facts Are Facts" has now transmogrified into a "lively debate" of opinions.
 
The original purpose of my first email was to provide additional technical factual information which might have benefit to Shutterbug readers.  However, since "facts" to a reasonable person are "opinions" in the Shutterbug world, and vice versa, clearly reader input is not wanted and not needed.  I have no intention of participating in "debates" about clearly defined facts.
 
Technical publications generally have standards for the presentation and checking of factual information.  Technical publications generally have a code of conduct for columnists.   Technical publications generally strive to treat readers with dignity and respect.
 
As recently clarified, Shutterbug does not have these characteristics.  Therefore, Shutterbug is not a technical publication.  Rather Shutterbug is a collection of editorials on technical subjects.
 
Since a collection of editorials on technical subjects has no value to this reader, the remainder of my subscription will be donated directly to the recycle bin.
 
I will be providing via certified mail to Mr. Schaub an annotated transcript of these discussions.  The main purpose of the written copy is a reminder of the following copyright limitations:
 
The content of the emails which were written by Jeffrey Sward and subsequently also published on http://www.jeffreysward.com are creative products covered by copyright law.  All such content is copyright Jeffrey Sward 2011.  All rights reserved.  No portion of these writings or its constituent elements may be reproduced in any form, by any means, without prior written permission.  In particular, the submission of these emails is NOT granting permission for Shutterbug magazine to publish any portion these writings.  In particular, the submission of these emails is NOT granting permission for Shutterbug magazine to reference or publish the name Jeffrey Sward in any context.
 
No reply to this email is necessary.

All written content of this web site is solely the editorial opinion of Jeffrey Sward. All images, graphics, and written content of this web site, including the html files, are creative products covered by copyright law. All content copyright Jeffrey Sward 2011. All rights reserved. No portion of this web site or its constituent elements may be reproduced in any form, by any means, without prior written permission. So there.