Thread: Journalistic Credibility???

The Patrol is a dinosaur tottering on the brink of extinction.

Originally posted by rick130+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rick130)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-disco95
I'd agree Baz, Nissan needs to do something new to win 4WDOTY, they've been selling the same car for how many years now?

be a little careful, how long has the Defender been around ??

Most of the Patrolophiles on the various boards are a bit like Defender owners "please don't change it" ie. don't go IFS, etc[/b][/quote]

I think the Defender is a diferent kettle of fish, but then as you say perhaps the patrol owners feel the same way.
The Defender has never really been built as a vehicle for the masses that pushes the boundries of technology. Just a good honest hard worker.
I don't think that the Defender has ever been built with the thought of winning any award, just the idea of building the toughest off roader off the shelf.
To be honest if I wasn't a Landy man my next choice would be a Patrol.

I have to say i worry about some of you people.

An editor of a major 4wd mag in AU takes the time to say hello in a polite manner and have a look around and acknowledge you exist.

and whats he cop, sigh...

what ever happened to common curtesy?

surely you can get a point across without being offensive.

Originally posted by incisor
generalisations are dangerous and do nothing to show off your own IQ IMHO.

like any other form of life on earth, there are good and bad ones...

lumping them all in one bundle only detracts from the merits of the good ones.

why is it that this is (in general) a growing trend?

You're just sick of being stereotyped as a "computer nerd"

got some of your gloves handy?

Hi Incisor,
It's good to see a bit of sanity back into the debate.
Everybody has their opinion, but like you said getting it across sensibly and inoffensively should still be possible.
Juz

I must admit that when I read an article written by the same person who then advertises the winning product I start to wonder.

However I have a few years of 4x4 Australia in my cupboard and I remember one article fondly. It was a comparison of the (petrol ???) dual cab utes on the market at the time (1997). They stated that the Nissan Navara was a waste of the Earth's natural resources
From memory this was back when they used to have the Pathfinder Treks series too. I bet Nissan wasn't too pleased about that review.

As for Ron Moon owning a T-Van though....did he pay for it? Is it payment for his endorsements?

I don't buy any magazines these days. I get all the up to date info I need from internet forums and my 4wd club.

One thing I never understand though is why do Nissan keep sponsoring ACA and 9 news when they are constantly getting bagged by those same shows for their fuel guzzling kiddy killers?

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?