So camera companies and camera stores have plenty of things to sell in their cameras. They don't need no stinkin' pixels.
So What's All the Fuss About?
The expositions given above are no revelations. Everything stated is common knowledge, or at least should be to The Newspaper of Record. If readers don't know these things—indeed, if newspaper writers don't—they're probably turning to the wrong sources.
Why would anyone publish information that is so misguided and so oblivious to the bold-faced realities? Why insult the entire industry of camera companies and camera stores? We could not begin to guess.
Says the newspaper, "As the host of a TV series ('It's All Geek to Me,' to begin in April), I thought I finally had a chance to settle this thing once and for all." Oh, the writer has a TV show now. Good thing I read the article—I might not have known otherwise.
The article also states its megapixel exposé followed a test to assess the efficacy of megapixels, and "I described the test on my blog, confident that I would be hailed for blowing up the camera companies' pet morsel of misinformation."
Muckraking is a noble thing for a journalist to do, even if it does coincidentally promote a personal agenda. One simply hopes that when they go after politicians, or social programs, or individuals of dubious ethics, they're chasing realities and not straw men of their own perpetuation.
So we're really just kidding when we say The Times refuses to run camera ads. They never said anything of the sort.
Thinking about it, though, they might as well have.