Journalistic Credibility???

Deanno,
Thanks for taking the time to visit the forum and put your point of view across. Debate is what brings change and you need to know what the 4x4 community is saying. Anything I have said is not meant as a personal attack and I hope you do not take it that way, even though it may be hard not to. Your magazine just does not cater to my interests anymore, so hence I do not buy it, that simple. All magazines have some bias to an extent. I am just sick of people bagging LR in comparison to other 4x4s when in fact there is not much difference. Most anti LR comments come from people who have little long time experience with them. All 4x4s have their bad points and good points. I have owned 4 of the 5 major players and every time LR gives the best overall package for the price.
Once again thanks for the input.
Cheers
Craig E
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Oh and by the way, just because I may disagree with you does not mean I do not respect your opinion or right to that opinion. I would sit around a campfire and debate the vitues of certain products with you, like i do with all my friends (LR, Toyota, Nissan, Ford etc etc owners). At the end of the day it is about the lifestyle.

Craig E, I respect your opinions, even share some of them and like nothing more than a good chat about such things. But I still think the criticism of Ron Moon was a little unfair, for the reasons I stated previously, particularly that Moon actually owns and uses the product he endorses, so he's not just a paid mouthpiece but is an actual user.

Like you, I have been very pleased to see the magazines recognise the virtues of the D3 and other LR products recently, so that's a good sign. I guess the mags would say LR just hadn't kept up to the pace with the D2, but that's not true now.

I still get cranky when I see that reflexive snide comment in mags about LR reliability. Its just crap.

DiscoMick,
Im sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was not having a shot at Ron. I have the upmost respect for Ron and most of the other journo's opinion's in both mags. He has now left the editorial realm so is free to endorse whatever product he likes. It is a bit hard to stomach either a regular contributing journo or editorial staff doing a comparisson on one page and endorsing the winning product on another. The product may be the best but it is not an ideal scenario. Leave the ads out while a comparisson has taken place.
My main focus was that a certain magazine seemed to be heading in a direction and political oppinion I did not agree with so was a waste of time buying. There are numerous mags I do not buy as the are not relevant to my taste. As for these big companies and their ads and sponsorship, I am not naive and this type of association is neccessary for the good of the industry. At the end of the day comparissons should be as unbiased as possible as there are a lot of small players out there that have an as good as or better product than some of the big boys.
There will always be some bias in any reporting due to human nature, but journo's need to try and bring a balanced view not their or their employers agendas to the forefront. I just got sick of the constant ToyoNissan praising when not much else was looked at. Owning LRs opened up my eyes a bit and when a review was done on a LR there was quite often a snipe in there. I switched to 4WDMonthly as it was more balanced, plus all the goodies that come with renewing subs. 4X4 Australia would only give the goodies if you were a new subscriber not renewing (a subs department problem).
Initially I was buying both mags and to start with thought 4WD Monthly was below par, but grew into a better read. For a while I was buying UK LR magazines only as they were relevant but had no Aussie content.
I will even make a concerted effort to have alook at the latest 4X4 Australia to see if it is to my taste again.
More second hand or average owner 4x4 comparrisons in both would be great. New cars only really apply to a minority.
At the end of the day some people like apples, some like oranges and that is just the way it is. It does not mean I hate orange eaters.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Hell if you think 4X4 mags are bad have any of you read any boating mags lately


Ah ha ha
just joking well sort of, what I mean is you will **** this sort of thing in any magazine on any topic it is up to us the consumer to read between the lines and make up our own opinion

Cheers Blythe

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As for Ron Moon owning a T-Van though....did he pay for it? Is it payment for his endorsements? [/b][/quote]

This statment is where all this confict of interest arises. While I'm all for anyone endorsing a product if they honestly believe in the product. In my mind, if someone wants to maintain credibility, the product they endorse had better be up to scratch or said credibility is shot to ribbons.

But just because someone "owns" and "uses" a product that he/she endorses, does not mean they can not be unbiased in opinions. But that someone does and should know in advance, puts his neck on the line when reviewing competitors products due a confict of interest.

Whether this confict of interest is just perceived, or completely justified is hard to tell sometimes.

Never a more true a statement was made as "Money makes the world go around"

At the same time, just because someone "owns" and "uses" a product that he/she endorses does not mean they paid for that product out of their own pockets. A lot of endorsement deals include the product as part of the payment for the endorsement.

Who here thinks Peter Brock pays for the Holdens he runs around in? Hard to imagine Peter ever being quoted as saying "Ford was a better product than Holden".

Not while ever they are paying his bills.

Anyways thats my rant on the topic!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rmp
Guys, I think some of you need to consider your replies before posting.

Firstly there is no "4X4 Monthly" nor "4WD Australia". The two magazines are "4X4 Australia" and "4WD Monthly". But you should be reading Overlander anyway :-)

Secondly, as Inc pointed out, Dean (editor of 4X4 Australia) took the time to come here and post. I'm sure he doesn't mind negative feedback, constructive criticism and debate, but if who would want to stay around to be insulted? Would you be that rude around a campfire?

The fact of the matter is that any time any journo makes a call someone will accuse them of bias, bribery or worse because they disagree. Right now many people are calling Overlander and 4X4 LR-biased because of the D3/RRS awards. Not here though, for some reason. But it was here I recall a particuarly abusive post about a Defender/Troopy comparo 4X4 did a while back and I wouldn't have blamed the journalist had he considered a libel action. As I said, most journos welcome mature feedback of any kind but there's no need for childish behaviour.

As with every profession of course there are some bad apples, but that doesn't follow that every journo is a bribe-grabbing mercenary, and am I the only one to find the post containing the line "...and too often facts are not verified" amusing?

---

I totally agree with what you said there Robert.

What the guys have to realise, is that most jounalists in this field are avid four wheel drivers like us. They do own their own four wheel drives, they do take the family out camping etc. The difference is their job. I half suspect some sort of jealousy - I know I am!

However, in Robert's case he drives a Defender. So if he goes and does a comparison say between a Cruiser, Patrol and LandRover - does that mean he is biased? Does that mean he should have to put in the article that he owns a LandRover?

I don't think so. I think it comes down to him being an honest person - and you have to have some sort of faith or belief that this is the case. If you can't believe that, then reading and/or buyng magazines probably isn't a good idea!

I sometimes think that the generalisations about items I read here, are exactly the same as the generalisations we all hate about LandRovers. :wink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>However, in Robert's case he drives a Defender. So if he goes and does a comparison say between a Cruiser, Patrol and LandRover - does that mean he is biased? Does that mean he should have to put in the article that he owns a LandRover?
[/b][/quote]


No.

BUT, if he is 'endorsing' a product in a paid advertisment for a rival product to the one he is reviewing, I would say that he or the publication should disclose this to the reader.

We are all human, so we all have biases. You can never escape that, but my point is when it becomes 'commercial' as in a paid advertisment, then the reading public has the right to know there may be a conflict of interest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cewilson
However, in Robert's case he drives a Defender. So if he goes and does a comparison say between a Cruiser, Patrol and LandRover - does that mean he is biased? Does that mean he should have to put in the article that he owns a LandRover?

---

Funnily enough I did that exact comparo a while ago -- and did state I ended up buying the Defender!

I did an 11-car comparo which went to press earlier in the year and I didn't state I'm a Landrover owner, because firstly that didn't matter and secondly it's not as if that's a secret to regular Overlander readers. My previous 4WD was a Mitsu, and the next may not be a Landrover.

I think biases are often more towards types of vehicle than specific manufacturers. For example I make no secret of the fact that I look at 4WDs with a view to fun driving, offroad capability and the ability to lug a heavy load over rough terrain.

Endorsements; agree that those should be disclosed, as should any conflict of interest (eg XYZ travelled to ABC as a guest of XXX).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Who here thinks Peter Brock pays for the Holdens he runs around in? Hard to imagine Peter ever being quoted as saying "Ford was a better product than Holden". [/b][/quote]

Funny, that I had a conversation with Brocky some years ago when he was racing for Furd. He said to me then he was not happy in a Ford and preffered Holdens and did want to get back on board one. A couple of Furd fans were a bit stunned.

I have also found the anti-LR claims amusing in regards to 4X4 Aust.
4X4 has used Landies as long-termers a lot over the years, including a TD5 MY03 model that, among other things, did a heavy-duty trip with heaps of modified Cruisers and Patrols.

The Disco did the trip in standard form and the vehicle had no dramas whatsoever. Its performance made me buy one, in fact!

Niggly things in vehicles get mentioned in articles, regardless of marque. Ron Moon even devoted a "Footloose" column to manufacturers' woes - not just LR's perceived reliability problems, but Nissan's Patrol was mentioned, as was the Toyota LC100 Series.

In terms of the journo stuff, like I said before - the word is professionalism and the examples given throughout this discussion prove the point.

cheers,
Juz