But the above post by dutchspotter1 hits the nail on the head: had it been diligently screened this problem wouldn't have arisen, and I think it's fair to suggest that another, less well-known photographer would have had it rejected.
I do agree with the first as well. But it is there, it was accepted, so unfortunately we cannot change it. So a bit pointless IMO. We all know it shouldn't be there. That's like saying if xy politician wouldn't have been there some stuff wouldn't have happened. Still they are there and doing their stuff.
I can only speak for myself and those 2 other screeners I really know well. But for us it doesn't make a difference who the photographer is and when we screen the shots we don't even look whose they are (okay on some shots it is obvious though). If theres is an issue that justifies a rejection it will be rejected and certainly I won't change my mind when I see the photographers name .I do believe that the majority of screeners do it that way.
But for sure I cannot exclude neither that any favorism isn't happening and yes it would be naive to think it isn't happening at all or never happened. As Karl pointed out this is basically happening everywhere in the world.
Still I can say with a clear conscience that it is not happening systematically in a big way as some suggest here.
It is absolutely not the case that if a certain photographer uploads a shot it will automatically be accepted.
And please don't take it that way to say: "Julien confirms that favorism is happening". No I don't have evidence for this. But can I rule out that anyone might be less strict on his buddies shots? Certainly not. Again that would be naive.