A New York Times review of an umbrella with a handle that is designed to facilitate smartphone use includes the following passage:
The handle, which is a combination of plastic and rubber, is strong but comfortable. I could easily hold the umbrella over my head while texting in the rain.
But I wish the rest of the umbrella were designed as well as the grip. The Brolly looks as cheap as those $5 umbrellas that vendors start hawking as soon the sky turns gray. I have a feeling the Brolly would not last through a gusty New York storm and would end up among the other twisted creatures of bent spines and torn fabric that are left in trash cans and gutters after a heavy rain.
If the Times is going to go to the trouble of reviewing an umbrella, is it really too much to ask — from a New York-based newspaper with the Times' considerable resources — that the reviewer actually try it out in a gusty New York storm? Instead of trying it out in a gusty storm and finding out, in reality, how the item performs, the reviewer just shares his "feeling" that the umbrella won't last.
What's next, Times auto reviews in which, instead of driving the car, the reviewer just looks at the the car and tells readers his "feeling" about how it will handle on the road? Times restaurant reviews in which instead of actually eating the food, the reviewer just looks at the plate, or at the outside of the restaurant, and shares his "feeling" about how the food will taste?
If the newspaper is going to accuse a product of being flimsy — which, in essence, is what the Times review does — the least that fair journalistic practice calls for is actually to test the product, rather than to just look at it and "have a feeling."