the(new)mediaslut

[Update: 28 April 2006]

Ian Tan published today in The New Paper (link to made be avaliable tomorrow) that “The New Paper is statisfied that Company X had no intention to mislead anyone using its looping cable setup” after visiting Company X for a demo.

Maybe Ian could get comments from competitors of Company X and check with them if such looping method is fair when used in comparing the quality of competiting plamsa or LCD brands side by side.

[Update: 24 April 2006]

themediaslut have been told a photo was taken during this media event which showed the bias video signal connection which gave a distinct advantage to Company X.

Apparently, the photo is now in the hands of Competitor Y and the hands belong to somebody at the top.

themediaslut smells something big is about to happen.

[Update: 20 April 2006] : Ian Tan, for The New Paper, also reported on the incident though he chose not to publish the name of the vendor in question. Tan’s column can be found here .

(First published: 19 April 2006. The Broken Pitcher can only laugh when he heard of the following incident which happen at a media event, somewhere in South East Asia.)

At this particular event, a vendor wanted to prove their PLASMA TV was better than their competition.

So the vendor put their PLASMA TV next to their competitors and the journalists there found it to true to believe the degration in the quality of the images on the competitor’s PLASMA TV.

Upon investigation by some pesky journalists, they found out that…..

(DRUMROLL, please)

The vendor actually did was they connected the video source by s-video to the their PLASMA TV.

From that connected PLASMA TV RGB port, the vendor connected the signal to the competitors’s, via the vendor’s PLASMA TV composite video!

This, of course, affected the quality of the images on the competitor’s PLASMA TV.

Naughty, naughty, naughty vendor!