Interesting magazine "article"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harlie

Do I take from the posts above that rmp is actually associated with this publication? So would have a financial interest in shutting me up? Don’t see that declared, the connection to the business that publishes “errors”, and if these errors are that blind – what’s the point in reading it?

It just craps me when at a camp site or boat ramp, the average punter will argue about features of any euro brand (4x4 mainly) because that’s what they read in “last months mag”. “That D3 is no good; the 2nd battery has to go inside – how stupid is that”. Must be true it’s in print, don’t let the fact that the writer didn’t bother to actually investigate what was under that battery sized plastic cover enter the conversation.

But sorry “errors” not bias – at least I know not to waste time and money there any more...

---

Geez, keep your pants on. RMP is entitled to ask you to show him evidence of this deliberate bias without having to disclose he is involved in the actual mag, it was your comment after all.

Why do you care. It is your vehicle, you made the better informed choice, who cares what the mug at the boat ramp thinks. As noted before I like the look of amazement on the faces of other 4wders (Tojo and Nissan owners) when the D3 simply walks up stuff they think will stop it.

LR is a major advertiser in all these mags, pretty much every mag I recall picking up in the last 12 months had the back cover as an LR ad so any 'bias" must not be putting the advertisers off.

I would like to be perfect in everything I do at work but I recon you would find more than the odd mistake, no reason for journos to be any different.

George.

What I like is when they print misleading facts like price,I don't know how many times the price quoted has been for the base model but the one they are driving has all the options that cost an extra 20K but thats not written down. Pat

Jeez Harlie. :rolleyes:

I tend to think that if anything Overlander have been pretty supportive of Land Rover. I've chatted to quite a few of them, and although there are some old school people in there (and no, I'm not "in there"), the attitude has always been positive.

I don't think ANY of these mags show any true bias, or are particularly anti-Land Rover, not in the last few years.
Sure 5 or so years ago, they may have been, and you'd be lucky to see a green oval at all in the mags.

There may be more Nissan/Toyota content, but that's cause there are probably 10 times as many of those vehicles as Landies nowadays.

In Overlander / 4x4 Aus / 4WD Action, there are nearly always one or two articles on a Landy, or they are in a comparison.
Several of the staff of ALL these mags, are either current or past LR owners.
Several of them often praise Land Rovers and/or their history and heritage.

Of course there are some that think they are unreliable oil leakers, and always mention this, but a) who cares and b) they are in the minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harlie

Do I take from the posts above that rmp is actually associated with this publication? So would have a financial interest in shutting me up? Don’t see that declared, the connection to the business that publishes “errors”, and if these errors are that blind – what’s the point in reading it?

---

It's a pretty long bow to draw to say I've got a financial interest in Overlander, and it gets stretched further to conclude I (or anyone else) is trying to shut you up. Feel free to air your views here, that's what the forum is for. This has given me an idea for a blog post at least.

I tend to think that all 4x4 magazines try to cater for the majority. If 60% (example only) of 4 wheel drivers own Toyotas, then they will try to feature Toyota in 60% of the vehicles in their magazine.
May be wrong. Just thinking logic.
Cheers, Craig

That's quite correct and that sort of bias, called "coverage bias" - towards the vehicles the readers want - is fine. What is not acceptable is when a certain type of vehicle is covered being unfair on it to support a pre-determined point of view. That's a different type of bias altogether. All magazines actively use coverage bias. This can lead readers to conclude they are "against" the lesser-used marques.

While we are talking mags in general, three of us on the forum took part in 4WD Action test of the D4 in April last year. The article that resulted was not biased, although it did mention (as have a lot of other reviews) the issue of 19" wheels and tyre availability. Obviously at that time there was not the choice there is now.
The journo who wrote the article is/was a Land Rover owner.

From my reading of Overlander over the last few years it seems to me that there has been no overt bias towards or agains particular manufacturers. That said obvious mistakes do crop up, but I see that in the computing magazines I read as well and as was mentioned previously I think most of us are guilty of making mistakes.
Cheers
Mike

Hey there rmp,

I'm with you on the coverage bias thing. As others have said, we, the Land Rover fraternity, are in the minority in the market place. The fact that we have the superior vehicle is our own guilty little pleasure ;)

What does irk me though is the magazines giving otherwise glowing reviews to something like the D3/D4 and then picking on its wheels/tyres saying that they are a liability. While to a certain extent this may be true as tyre makers are v e r y slow to keep up with car makers on supply of "appropriate" rubber to meet the road/track it is not as big a demerit as they would have us believe.

I have yet to read any of the mainstream press bemoaning the fact that when things like the Toyo's top flagships went to 17" wheels, and there was a positive dearth of suitable tyres for them, it was a very bad thing. Yet strangely because the Disco's went up another inch (or two) all of a sudden that's a bad thing. That's real bias in my viewing.

Another example is the class leading technology LR came up with in Terrain Response. Yes, it was applauded in the mainstream press at the time. Interesting that Toyo's attempts to emulate it, badly (in my and some other more knowledgeable souls view), it is lauded as being the greatest thing since sliced bread on them. With little acknowledgement it is such a blatant rip-off of the technology. Goodness, it can't possibly be uttered that something on a Land Rover was not only good but so good they stole it. I have a quiet laugh to myself because as is said, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

Now, I have been sniggered at many times for owning a modern Range Rover (with large diameter wheels and low sidewall profile tyres) and having the temerity to think I can use it off road. After successfully navigating the same Range Rover around Central Australia, the areas between the Simpson Desert and the Flinders Ranges without so much as a niggle OR a flat tyre, an area known to kill many vehicles bits, including tyres, over the years, I can quietly snigger to myself over the boasts of all those Toyo and Niss ads. What LR have created is a very civilised saloon car that hasn't lost much of it's 4WD ability. What the others are doing is taking their still rather agricultural 4WDs and trying to turn them into saloons. The difference is obvious.

Oh, there is also a great market for add-on bits for your other make 4WD. Yes, there are lots out there to keep a healthy after market supply chain running. I find it curious that all of these things have to be done to these supposed "tough" 4WDs in order to make them capable of some of the same things a LR can do straight off the showroom floor. It seems at best this is begrudgingly acknowledged in the press, and mentioned only in passing before moving on to some other great virtue to be extolled in these "other" brands.

I've owned examples of these other makes and yet I still come back to owning a LR. Yes, I have a bias, hereby acknowledged.

Seems to me though that no-one has really figured out the the Japanese are still only doing what they have always done. Take examples of good things and put there own stamp on them. In the road car stakes they have overtaken the market and provide some wonderful innovation and technology. I've seen it and applaud it. In the 4WD stakes they are still only playing catch up. That said, the pundits at LR had better keep on their game because the lead they've fought for 60 years is closing quickly.
I also freely acknowledge that we, the LR fraternity, got our kick start in just the same manner by taking what Willys/Ford had done during WWII and improving on it. While Jeep seemed content to rest upon its laurels, and they were good ones to rest on, LR took the ball and ran with it. They started to think outside the box some time ago and produced what has been described as the "best vehicle ever" in all manner of motoring press and kept coming up with ace cards.

Just my little rant/take on this all. Your views may differ. Viva la difference.

Cheers,
Iain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco4SE

I tend to think that all 4x4 magazines try to cater for the majority. If 60% (example only) of 4 wheel drivers own Toyotas, then they will try to feature Toyota in 60% of the vehicles in their magazine.
May be wrong. Just thinking logic.
Cheers, Craig

---

+1

And it's the same for the road cars too (Holden/Ford vs the rest). People write into Wheels/Motor complaining that THEIR Alfa (or TVR etc) doesn't get on every magazine cover. The editor points out that there are not enough of THEIR cars in the country to put a different one on the cover each month...and it goes on.

I used to read 4WD Action (when it was monthly) but stopped since it became the equivalent of day time TV advertorials. Still think Roothy should be Knighted.