You've got to remember this is the internet.
People don't act in the same manner on here as they do in the real world, and it's much easier to say things... and I've never seen internet critiques that haven't gone down this route.

"rubbish"; just another bunch of pretty shots; irresponsible; crappy slider work;

In addition to that you've surely got to look at how the commentators articulated themselves and their views later on in the discussion. you can't just take snippets like that from.

"Recognize when you see that going on in an industry, and make the decision to embrace that change. "

you don't have to embrace change... especially if you feel it's not the right sort of change. I personally think pieces like this are going in the wrong direction (being almost totally stylised and lacking in content),

I embrace a different form of change.. I believe in the more hyper local efforts and think this will be the step to the future... but this is a totally different story.

"To bash him for doing what he was invited to do, on a site that is ABOUT DSLR news shooting, still seems off to me."
no one bashed him for posting on the site etc. people just raised questions about his work and expressed opinions. if people are only invited to comment if its going to be positive then in all honesty. What's the point?

"Why go on about how frustrated you are hearing about all the things this camera can do?"
well that comment was more a generalisation than a comment directed at Khalid. and I stand by it. I'm bored of seeing these montages and I want to see something real. it's my opinion.

But more than this I'm generally confused by the amount of it when I don't see a viable market for the end result? who's buying news content like this? so far the only place I'm seeing it is on websites advertising the cameras, software, lenses, and equipment.

"Khaild is only 24 years old. I would guess that many of the dissenters are considerably older and more experienced."
Maybe guess again. I'm 26 and I'm 1 year out of school.
You're probably just looking at a general selection from the industry.

"the criticism about his piece was not at all constructive. "
"there was a missed opportunity for you all to come along side a very young, empirically talented, yet inexperienced journalist, and provide compassionate, constructive criticism."
I'd disagree with you here. if you think the ciriticisms given by myself and some of the others were harsh then you need to get in the real world. And anyway, It's all about how you take it.

I'd say the feedback given by many was constructive...
most people would have preferred to see more content to put the piece into context as they felt this was missing. How much more contrsuctive can it get?

it simply depends on whether you want to hear it (again... there's always this stance against negative comments, but why can't people look at it, the comments were not an isolated incident but voiced by many, so maybe they have a point?)

seriously... maybe people should have suggested a different lens? or some filter? would that have been better? that sort of stuff is just generally easier to hear isn't it, and doesn't come across as a personal attack.

PS: still listening to the interview and WTF?

did he just compare himself to natchwey?

oh my.

"I see it as a complement to what is already known and out there."
"From this piece I know that these people feel destitute, need water, are tired, and need care. It makes me care for their plight."

how do you know they need water? how do you know they are tired? how do you know they need care?

Did you already knew that from the existing material? Because this piece doesn't say any of this it's just the opinion you take from the material the guy shot.

surely journalism has to be based on more fact