#!markdown
They may well do but a lot of their stuff, for example this year's entire bike
bible reads quite ridiculously pro their suppliers / products. In the whole
Bible, there was barely any pointing out of problems, limits or suggestion of
changes, just a focus on only the positive points of almost all the bikes
especially from the more in vogue brands. The contrast with say a Dirt review
could not be more stark and I don't even look at their stuff now as a result
as it just feels like they are more a mouthpiece for their advertisers than
anything. This trend generally is the biggest problem I and I suspect many
have with regards to trust in the mtb media. How you can possibly 'review' the
products of the people who pay you is always going to be a problem if that's
where the funding for publications continues to come from.
Aug. 19, 2015, 12:16 p.m. - Neil Carnegie
#!markdown They may well do but a lot of their stuff, for example this year's entire bike bible reads quite ridiculously pro their suppliers / products. In the whole Bible, there was barely any pointing out of problems, limits or suggestion of changes, just a focus on only the positive points of almost all the bikes especially from the more in vogue brands. The contrast with say a Dirt review could not be more stark and I don't even look at their stuff now as a result as it just feels like they are more a mouthpiece for their advertisers than anything. This trend generally is the biggest problem I and I suspect many have with regards to trust in the mtb media. How you can possibly 'review' the products of the people who pay you is always going to be a problem if that's where the funding for publications continues to come from.