I'd like to know what people think about it , and how much they trust it . Biot posted this a while back , and it got me thinking about the bike press in general , and how independent their views might be . I can't answer those questions , but you have to wonder don't you ? Joking aside , I used to read the UK bike press many years ago but then I lived abroad for such a long time , and I never got back into it . For most of the time , the only English language bike mags available to me were American ..... and they were mostly just ridiculous . As an example , a comparison review of the latest offerings ( then ) in the 600 sports range from Honda , Kawasaki , Yamaha and Suzuki had the exact same conclusion for each bike .... " stunning , best in it's class and great performance for the money " or words to that effect , in each case . So you have to think that fear of law suits might be affecting their judgement ? Or maybe it was only a quiet word to the writers .... " Don't say anything negative and you get to keep the review bike " . Who knows ? I'm just " speculating on a hypothesis " Are the UK bike press reluctant to write negative articles ,aimed at manufacturers ? I can see that it could have it's risks ..... inter-dependent relationships .... one hand washes the other etc .
What gets me about them, is that last years 'best thing since sliced bread' is now basically scrap and has been superceeded by the latest hypership. Magazines don't sell if you go along the lines of telling people that things have moved on and are slightly better than the last model, which is really the case. That doesn't sell (magazines or bikes). The magazines and manufacturers are invested in hyperbole and the more the press 'big up' a manufacturers products, the more likely they will be given access to free new stuff. It's self perpetuating. Look at the 44 teeth Youtube channel now. They are being flown out all over the place on launches for tyres, bikes, kit etc. That has to influence your reviews as you are bound to want to keep it going.
Most magazines are in the dying days, the last thing they are going to do is bite off the hand that feeds them
My exgirfriend used to work at MCN and the stuff they were given was mental , all stuff to be reviewed of course , the trips , the tyres etc , as said why would you slate it if it could impact your future freebies . The bikes shows , mcn peterborough , mcn london , old bmf etc used to always read really well , great show , loads of bargains . She used to get us free entry with press passes , straight passed the queues , press office with all the food and drink you can consume and if needed access anywhere including the guests . Just not paying to get in makes it a better show let alone missing out on the exspensive crap food . I go as they are a day out and they were always going down hill , now I have to pay , Christ they are shocking . I do miss her sometimes . Chris
As the manufacturers provide the most of the subject matter, the bulk of the test bikes, accesories & clothing etc, advertising revenue, plus free stuff & trips for the staff, the objectivity is directly linked to their income...
Word up chaps... not just limited to bike journalism, basically every "news" outlet has stakeholders and interested parties... Oh the flip side, some of the writers over the years (e.g. Simon Hargreaves) have proved very interesting and amusing and are worth enjoying for what they are, entertainers. FEC Podcast (SH and Martin Fitz-Gibbons) is wry and hugely entertaining. They are pretty candid about their journalistic integrity.
Bike journalism is puerile at the best, and what tv coverage there is, is generally dire. There’s simply not enough financial backing to make it to the mainstream, with exception to racing.
If there was an objective one with integrity amongst them, why hasn't there been an article on the lack of Nortons being delivered to people who have paid for them?
Apart from my dire grammar in my quoted post I do despair at the level of motorcycle journalism today. If they just improved the accuracy of the bike details, that would be a start. You read about a specific bike in one magazine then read about the same bike in another and you wonder if they’re testing something completely different. Journalists slate a bike one month for not having leaning ABS then the same journalist talks about another bike having limited electronics and how refreshing it is!
An example: Just reading Septembers Bike magazine. Page 101. KTM 790 Adventure The Figures. Wet weight 189kg. REALLY. That’s the dry weight. The magazines are littered with errors.
From KTM’s own website. But Bike magazine tell you it’s the wet weight. Most of the magazines are guilty of the same mistakes. My post was just an example. I subscribe to Bike & 2 other bike publications and they all suffer from poor journalism.
