[Closed] is mtb journalism, proper journalism?

write a fact-based article

About mountain biking/bikes? It'll never catch on.

'Mint-Sauce-Gate'?? Whats that then, have I missed something?

In the past I would have expected Dirt magazine to tell things straight up, they never seemed fussed about sponsor's images etc. Haven't read it in a while now though and it seems to look more mainstream now than it did, so I'm not sure.

Well there's a difference between surfing or biking as a pro sport and as a pastime. If someone wins title/money based on drug taking then it's an issue for sponsors/advertisers. If lots of us regularly head of into the woods for a spin whilst 'substanced' it's not the same issue, is it?

If there was an issue with the big manufacturers of retailers would we find out?

I'd have thought the same could be said of the smaller manufacturers who, lets face it, are all known to/by the limited pool of MTB journos.

I think, by and large that there is enough peer driven data out there/ on here for most of us to make our minds up without relying on the MTB press.

I think, by and large that there is enough peer driven data out there/ on here for most of us to make our minds up without relying on the MTB press.

So that's a no then, in that that's not how we would would expect to find out about mainsteam news - ie not rely on the press but on word of mouth.

There's been plenty of reporting of Missi Giove's recent drug related imprisonment

All small specialised press are susceptible to pressure from manufacturers. Give a bike a bad review and get no more test bikes from that manufacturer or advertising. Thats a big incentive not to give bad reviews.

Why would you want some journalism in what are effectively parts catalogues?
I don't understand this need for magazines, too slow and theres nobody there.
Long live the blog
eg. http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/
et al...
There really isn't any news, sorry

that's not how we would would expect to find out about mainsteam news - ie not rely on the press but on word of mouth.

Possibly, but then again it's a changing world. Did you learn more this month from News at Ten or from Wikileaks ?

Julian Assange is a journalist.

Did you learn more this month from News at Ten or from Wikileaks ?

Most people probably learned about Wikileaks on the News at Ten (or other established media).

To the original question: Even proper journalism often isn't proper journalism nowadays, but you're right in that consumer magazines don't employ newshounds dedicated to sniffing out juicy stories.

At least they're open about writing most "news" stories from a press releases though.

this thread is pointless without links to the relevant articles regarding the so-called fact-based journalism you mention.

Julian Assange is a journalist.

Who's had to move away from the mainstream media to make themselves heard in the way that they wish. Which is the point I'm trying to make about a changing world of news media and peer led info.

Most people probably learned about Wikileaks on the News at Ten (or other established media).

This is very true but the question has to be asked, would the established media ever have been looking for those stories ? Or ran with them had there not been such an internet buzz ? I doubt it.

Even if the mtb journos aren't actively sniffing around for stories, if they are currently aware of some issue within the industry would they report it, or sweep it under the carpet for an easy life? That's what the surf journos are being berated for.

Dunno, I doubt that these days the party boy lifestyle affects DH as much as it used to and while it's likely a few [i]Edited. Defamatory. Not our view. Mod [/i] are partial to the odd bit of drugs, I doubt it's as big a thing.

Some parts of the MTB media do shy away from being too controversial. Dirt does seem keen to speak out though- some of it, like their view on bolt through, is bobbins, but the reviews they gave the Giant Glory and this month the Karpiel were pretty scathing. I think they even called the Karpiel "terrible". MBR on the other hand would never be quite so clear cut, but it's got much more advertising.

"All small specialised press are susceptible to pressure from manufacturers. Give a bike a bad review and get no more test bikes from that manufacturer or advertising. Thats a big incentive not to give bad reviews."

not a typical experience from this manufacturer's pov (and also knowing how it works with many other brands madison distributes). if you throw your toys out of the pram and don't support a mag you get no more exposure, plus i'd say good reviews win as many (if not more) sales as bad ones loose so if your bikes aren't crap you have nothing to worry about. the fact is there aren't many crap bikes around now and consumer feedback is the main influence there.

it can go both ways, we simply need each other to a point. it's a commercial thing so it's not journalism in the way that breaking a story about a cover-up over the iraq war is. but then the mainstream media / papers tend to print what people want to read by aligning with socio-economic or political stereotypes in order to sell copy. proper mainstream news journalism is like proper politics - rare and valuable.
it's fair to say that the mags / media who simply speak their mind and last / keep readers often are the most credible, in any industry.

also, the cycling press are pretty harsh on dopers i think, the industry in general is less tolerant of it than football, baseball etc.

[i]Sorry chap, cleaned up what you quoted so removed the name[/i]

I know he talks a bit like he's stoned, but he seems a pretty clean cut sort of guy to me.

I reckon that [i]Name removed. Mod[/i] is on something though.

Some parts of the MTB media do shy away from being too controversial. Dirt does seem keen to speak out though-

Funnly enough when I attended the original Dirt launch party one of the journos that i was having a smoke with didn't seem too keen on pictures appearing in the mag...

BTW the party was held in a back street outskirts of Brum club that was notorious for all night class A fueled partys. 8)

Ohhh Yesss.

An interesting thread. Let me add some of my own opinions here...
Regarding product testing - I reckon that most UK bike journos out there are unswayed by advertisers' money. For a start, if the magazine is full of ads, or isn't, they still get paid the same amount. When I worked at Future (admittedly more than ten years ago) it was very rare for any of the ad guys or publishers to see what I'd written before it went to the printers, so there was zero influence on my work.

Another thing is that there simply aren't many truly bad products out there. There are some that are better value, or look better, or are finished better, but very few that are truly awful. The days of pogo suspension and foot-long stems are over and most bikes ride pretty nicely. There are some that are designed to a price, with all the compromises involved with that, but that is usually taken into consideration. There are some that are designed with a specific rider or riding in mind too - and as long as that is considered, you'll get a worthy review.

As for in-depth investigative journalism, I'm not sure there's that much deception and intrigue out there of interest to most readers. There are a few behind the scenes trade stories that would probably get a 'so what?' response from most readers: Shimano owns Pearl Izumi, Manitou has a patent on any non-cylindrical fork thru-axle, Bob Fox of Fox Shocks and Geoff Fox of Fox Clothing are brothers... Bored yet? 😉

There have been some good journo-led stories that have made some difference. Things like the Eastway circuit replacement, or the Sian and Dafydd-run cafe at Coed Y Brenin story. Thanks to the public outcry from that story (on Singletrackworld...) they went from two-weeks' notice to staying on for another 18 months. As for other intrigue, I'm not sure I've found much. Perhaps I should dig more...

Anyway, I hope that helps explain things from my point of view.

the cycling press are pretty harsh on dopers i think

That hasn't always been the case, and in some quarters of the road scene the omerta is still strong. Just ask Paul Kimmage. However, more are reading the runes and realising the obvious - that high profile drug scandals are damaging the sport by deterring sponsors.

there simply aren't many truly bad products out there. There are some that are better value, or look better, or are finished better, but very few that are truly awful.

This is a good thing, of course, but doesn't it make reviewing bikes (or writing one of use to prospective buyers) virtually impossible?

At the time of the Pinder v Fox Forks court case there was no reporting of the case itself by any of the magazines or web mags. Out of technical curiousity I tried to make it to as many court days as possible and wrote up what I could remember or decipher from my notes here:

http://spoomplim.blogspot.com/

I met one guy from bike radar I think, but they never published anything other than Fox press releases and he was only there for the one day as far as I can tell.

I know it's probably too much to expect a court reporter on behalf of the cycling press but given the energy of discussions on various forums, it was surely worth some effort of journalistic reporting from someone in the trade? OR is crowd sourced journalism the only cost effective way of doing it these days?

If I want a properly thought through, interesting in depth, something to read I pick up a mag from the other side of the Atlantic or even Australia. I gave up on UK mags about five years ago! Too many adverts and spin and stuff I'm not interested in or know already. Nice pics in some but so much hype and nonsense..

MTB journalism does have a bit of a "don't rock the boat" ethos - but then I'm not really sure that I want to see the boat rocked. To me the Andy Irons story is just another "famous person may have used drugs" piece. Unless a product is dangerous, or drug use is endemic to the sport, I don't think writing negative press it really achieves anything, except maybe satisfying people's desire to read something bad about a successful product or person.

I remember Stoner's reporting on the Pinder v Fox case and while a decision that QR forks caused the accident would have been big news, in the absence of a definite conclusion one way or the other I'm not sure what there was to report. There are certainly a lot more bolt-through forks around than a few years ago but whether that's due to safety concerns or a changing MTB market isn't really clear.

Regarding the Fox/Pinder thing: We interviewed Russ Pinder during that time - but he declined to mention anything about it due to the upcoming court case. When the case was settled out of court, we made inquiries but he was under a non-disclosure agreement...

No offence but MTB writers never particularly strike me as "journalists". They write articles about kit and trips / rides and stuff but there's not much topical or contentious content.

E.g. trailbuilder's frustration with FC, state of IMBA (hands up how many mtb "journo's" at their last (or previous) conferences / agm? None), access and RoW, etc.

There's the odd bit but nothing much. Then again they aren't newspapers, they're some weird amorphous mess of advertising, fanmags, gear catalogues and press releases.

Passes the time on the toilet 😉

I notice MBR have a stab at something inflammatory every so often (Warhead's articles and more recently the "discussion pieces" in the back. Typically though they're anecdotal / no names.

The MTB world does seem to be obsessed with kit rather than where and how we can ride. I get a bit frustrated at how much ink was expended on something as irrelevant (to me) as bikes getting an extra cog at the back, and Dave's article in STW was the first attempt I can remember at tackling the elephant in the room that is land access.

Of course in this respect you can argue that mags are giving the punters what they want - access doesn't affect many riders as they can simply ignore the footpath signs and tutting walkers, bridleway upgrade applications don't make riveting copy, and a borderline autistic level of kit obsession is a given with many sports.

Re Fox v Pinder, it does sound like the court proceedings finished with nothing to base a report on. I suppose ST could have published an article that was based mainly on speculation, but then we have the forum for that...

[i]There's the odd bit but nothing much. Then again they aren't newspapers, they're some weird amorphous mess of advertising, fanmags, gear catalogues and press releases.[/i]

Not entirely untrue. I do wonder how much behind the scenes scandal and reportage goes on in, say, the world of the RC Car magazine world, or Caravanning and Motorcaravan World... 🙂

With things like IMBA, you'll find that they get a fair amount of coverage when new (again, we've interviewed the boss of IMBA, the head of safety planning for the FC and other folk in similarly worthy jobs) but if there's no particular ongoing news, they tend to fade from the limelight.

"t[i]here simply aren't many truly bad products out there. There are some that are better value, or look better, or are finished better, but very few that are truly awful.[/i]

This is a good thing, of course, but doesn't it make reviewing bikes (or writing one of use to prospective buyers) virtually impossible? "

i think a good bike mag journo understands the bike and riders enough to be able to explain what a bike is good for, what it's not, and whether the manufacturer has achieved the right things with it or just churned out a design based on previously-proven ideas. there's something to that, any of us can say whether we like a bike or kit, but articulating why technically and accurately, or realting to a different rider's needs well instead of just your own, is not necessarily easy to do no matter how much you love riding. plus, writing something that reads well or makes you think/smile etc and keeping a fresh perspective on it all over the years? there's a reason some last and others are short-term writers i think.

I reckon an article about IMBA in the UK, it's current state and where / what it hopes to achieve would be topical (and given the interest in RoW from Dave's article) might appeal to more people than might at first be thought.

Compare and contrast the pro's and con's of the three cycling related organisations; IMBA, CTC and BC.

[url= http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp271/repackrider/avatar235.jp g" target="_blank">http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp271/repackrider/avatar235.jp g"/> [/IMG][/url]
[url= http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/mtbwelcome.htm ][b]2retro4u[/b][/url]
Marin County, Cali

I published the first mountain bike magazine, the [url= http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/ftf_welcome.htm ]Fat Tire Flyer[/url], starting in 1980. I contributed to all the MTB publications for a while. Now just I do a bit for Privateer and Dirt Rag, but for me writing (not journalism) is neither a career nor a profession.

How much real "journalism" is available to a MTB magazine? A "bike review" is not journalism. A puff piece on Steve Peat or Danny MacAskill is not journalism. An interview with Missy Giove's bagman would be journalism, but is unlikely to appear in a MTB magazine.

To me, journalism is finding out about something interesting and newsworthy BEFORE the press release arrives.

Chipps

I get your point about the staff writers getting paid the same amount whatever they write, however you don't have to be that clever to realise that you might not want to bite the hand that feeds you. My original musings were along the line of if you* [i]already knew[/i] of some ongoing wrong doing in the mtb world (by some influential industry mover and shaker) would you report it knowing that it would upset the apple cart?

*by you I mean mtb journalists (not you per se)

I also take your point that us mtbers are boring ****ers but I think that's an unfair comparison to caravanworld surely? 😉

I don't know what the collective editorial view of IMBA is, but I think Dave regards them as a bit of a lame duck.

An interview with Missy Giove's bagman would be journalism, but is unlikely to appear in a MTB magazine.

Alternatively, it would be yet another story about a minor celebrity who has become involved with drugs. Unless you're arguing that in order to be a world class DH racer you have to be really baked.

I don't know what the collective editorial view of IMBA is, but I think Dave regards them as a bit of a lame duck.

I don't entirely disagree but better to talk about the organisations that are potentially the representatives of MTB than just not write about them?

MTB needs representation somehow and if part of that is highlighting how an organisation isn't performing (and I'm not singling IMBA out here) then I think that, although not in a fluffy and cuddly way, is worth doing.

We need to talk about failures as well as successes. Mistakes and things not going so well are learning opportunities. Sometimes they're even a spur to an organisation to sort itself out.

What I see now is loads of disparate volunteer groups working all over the place and no real unifying entity. It's a pipe-dream, but it's my dream 😉

I'm working on something re: CTC which will be in the next issue, got bumped from current one due to lack of space. IMBA are next on the list :o)

I did also get excited about "an extra cog at the rear" though, ahem. ;o)

I'm working on something re: CTC which will be in the next issue, got bumped from current one due to lack of space. IMBA are next on the list :o)

Nice one Dave, I look forward to it 😎

I hope, as well, that it'll come at the organisations from both directions, if you know what I mean 😉

Re Fox v Pinder....

This is important. A man who was paralysed in an accident sued a major component manufacturer in a UK court.His case wasn't thrown out as spurious. Trial reporting was done by Stoner in his spare time. The evidence called at trial was interesting. The manufacturer settled out of court (for an undisclosed sum and with a gagging clause in the settlement agreement). There are a relatively small number of inferences to be drawn from that. If it was a tiny settlement the amount would ave been publicised (c/f Trafigura). If it was a big settlement that reflects counsel's assessment that Fox were going to lose - i.e. were facing a legal ruling that the design of their product contributed to someone being paralysed and they were at fault.

Serious journalism wouldn't have ignored the evidence presented in the court, and wouldn't have allowed Fox to close down the story by paying off the claimant.

It doesn't [i]matter[/i] particularly, ST and other magazines are what they are - entertainment, creative writing, lots of pictures, maps and recycled press releases. But that sort of passivity is what makes the mtb press entertainment rather than necessary reading. To claim that, because there wasn't a verdict there wasn't a story, is pretty lightweight.

I'm just reading Robert Fisk's account of the Sabra/Chatila massacres mind. That might be affecting my benchmarking here... 🙂

mtb journo = manufacturer arse kisser 😀

I agree with the sentiments that there isn't much in the way of journalism in the classic sense in MTB mags, but I'd be more likely to buy bike mags if there were. I for one would like to read something a little bit more researched and in-depth than the same old, we went here and did this, then so-and-so came and gave us some stuff and we did something else or a so called "truth about..." article that doesn't give me any more info than I can find on the internet during my lunch break. As for kit reviews I agree it is too top heavy on kit these days and that they aren't nearly outspoken enough.

Perhaps if there were longer, more investigative articles then the mags could afford to be more critical and outspoken in their product reviews without fear people will stop sending them stuff. It would of course mean that they would stop getting new toys all the time and have to get on with some hard work 😉

When the case was settled out of court, we made inquiries but he was under a non-disclosure agreement...

..and to be fair Chipps that is where the tenacity of a hairy assed journalist would have kicked in.

To claim that, because there wasn't a verdict there wasn't a story, is pretty lightweight.

You're not the first person to accuse me of that, funnily enough. But, although I agree there was some interesting evidence presented on both sides (on the one hand, Fox's previous patent application for a revised dropout design, citing safety reasons, on the other their expert's deconstruction of the physics and shifting of the blame onto the QR) none of that really adds up to something you can print. At the best, you'd annoy loads of manufacturers and owners of said equipment by pointing out that in certain very unusual circumstances it can fail, and most users would probably ignore you anyway. At worst, you'd have created the MTBing equivalent of the salmonella scare.

It also has to be said, inferring anything from litigation settling is a dangerous business. My impression, from my limited experience of the industry, is that when a settlement is made there's overwhelming mutual relief on all sides, and the addition of a gagging clause isn't the sort of thing people get hung up on. And there are always other factors at play besides who is right.

I think you're making several points here, very broadly:

1 - that the mtb press shouldn't annoy manufacturers;

2 - that they shouldn't raise or ventilate safety concerns about equipment;

3 - that the readership won't pay attention to technical arguments (other than "23% stiffer than last year's model", anyway);

4 - that the risks of basing a story on inferences plus "no comment" are too great to run.

I'm sure all these are correct, and I can absolutely see that they fit perfectly well with the business model of these magazines. But it isn't an approach that's going to win anyone the Paul Foot Award. 🙂

Dave - do make sure you get the IMBA, CTC and more RoW stuff in, it's vitally important in the long run and is relevant to everyone, whether they know/accept it or not.

IMBA Australia is about a year old now; fortunately, Nic who heads it up (and happens to be a mate of mine) has managed to do a few things that really help keep it relevant;
- his IMBA blog roll is mirrored on the biggest Aussie online MTB forum.
- He has a column in one of the bigger, more DH focused mags over here too (DH "seems" to be where in particular more work is needed for access, yet less participants are willing to do it, at least here in Aus)
- He does actually get on-line and post on the bigger forums and key regional ones where and when possible.
- He is always sure to promote the local groups doing the hard graft, day in, day out locally.
- He attends the national race rounds and bigger events he can to actually meet folks and raise awareness of what he is doing etc.

Consequently he has done a fair bit to raise the awareness around the country for access issues and increased discussion and planning is starting between land managers and riders and other users.

I'm no longer in the UK, but it seems to be a fair problem that IMBA/CTC etc do have is that they don't seek engagement, but rather wait for it. That is why the locals just get on with it, with no apparent nationwide unification.

Who knows what IMBA UK, for example, is working on at the moment? Very few I bet.

They need to get their message out there by actaully making the effort to engage the MTB community. Your articles may very well help that and get the right folks talking together to push it forward.

I'm not saying that MTB mags don't print stories that will piss off manufacturers, or inform of unsafe equipment. Even the middle of the road ones like MBR will say if their test bike snapped, or if there's a safety recall on a product. I just don't think the way the Fox v Pinder case ended exonerated QRs or cast serious doubts on their safety. To use a totally inappropriate cliche, the jury's still out.

There are plenty of people out there in internetland who are willing to publish speculative cobblers about the safety of cycling products. Blogs like this are equal parts depressing and amusing:

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/09/safety-moment-speed-wobble-and-jaw.html

Unfortunately, these questions are really hard to answer through images. I would check the tension on the spokes with a tensionometer, consult with a metallurgist who would be able to analyze the sample of broken aluminum rim (Stony Brook should have a professor who may help) and try as much as possible to take a similar wheel with the same tire, attach it to the same bike and perform some maneuvers at the speed in question.

I'd imagine that checking the spoke tension on a wheel where half the spokes are flapping around uselessly after pulling out of the rim will tell you precisely bugger all. Happy to be corrected though, I'm not an engineer. And I particlarly like that on the one hand he's implying that Mavic rims are dangerous crap, while on the other he's encouraging people to try and replicate the accident.

[i]The surf industry (manufacturers, athletes and journos) are a notoriously tight knit community. It took a ‘proper’ journo from outside of the industry to write a fact-based article.[/i]

Footballers are notorious drug takers both recreational and performance enhancing but up till recently, football has not had to run the media gauntlet that other sports have had to go through because of the enormous amounts of money that the football companies can bring into play to help maintain the status quo.

I'm glad, mainly from a 'round the table at work' chat arena, that this information is starting to be leaked via the press. Athletes from all sporting arensa take drugs, a lot. The sports with the least amount of money 3earning potential get exposed first, like athletics and cycling, the last ones to be exposed will be the rich and powerful ones, like football.

In answer to the OP, my experience of minority sports mags (surfing, waterskiing), particularly USA ones, is that they are very much advertiser orientated, I guess they have to be as the readership will be so small, so the mags income will very much depend on support from the industry. So much so that it's not going to be in their interests to ruffle feathers in the industry. IME any 'shoot out' artical between products is often only between products of current advertisers and no real best/worst conclusion is dared to be drawn. Many articals appeared to be just extra advertising space for advertisers ie "if you spend $X on advertising with us, we'll put your chosen products in other mag articals". I think this will be the case with the current Surfing mags, so I believe your conclusion is probably correct on that.
I haven't experienced this in MTB mags tho, certainly not to the same degree. MTB might be a minority sport, but not to the same degree as surfing or waterskiing.

Chipps,

Your remarks are professional, I salute you. Just check out this thread from UKC which is rampant at the moment. I would not expect or ever hope to see anything like this in a professional mtb magazine/website, where the 'pro' journalists name people in person!

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=436710

The closest we have to an investigative journalist in our sector is probably Carlton Reid from Bikebiz who does chase down all sorts of different stories.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/british-bike-association-is-not-the-bicycle-association

TBH I think that UKC article (I haven't read the whole thread) is absolutely spot on. Dealing with specifics and not hiding behind generalisations.

If only there was similar honesty and directness in MTBing I think it would be ultimately constructive (and refreshing).

Anyone remember the guy from up northeast who was Transition's importer / ditributer for a while? An utter crook and failure as a business man (I know one (of the apparently many) young riders who paid him money to get a cheap frame under a "grass roots" programme who never saw a bike or their cash again). I don't recall his activities getting much coverage in anythign other than forum posts.

Investigative journalism doesn't have to be all drugs, corruption and court cases.
Take this report of Mountain Mayhem for example.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/2010/06/glorious-mayhem-stories-and-results-here/

Mountain bikers, the people who ride bikes, enter events and buy kit, might be interested to know all sorts of things like...
Where was the highest placed 29er, 1x9, singlespeed, or fully rigid ?
What was the course like ?
What tyres were the winners using ?
What was the solo pit area like ?
And so on.

All these things would be of interest to anyone wondering what bike or kit to buy or what events to enter next year.
Instead, we get another page of press releases about tents and sleeping mats.

Anyone remember the guy from up northeast who was Transition's importer / ditributer for a while? An utter crook and failure as a business man (I know one (of the apparently many) young riders who paid him money to get a cheap frame under a "grass roots" programme who never saw a bike or their cash again). I don't recall his activities getting much coverage in anythign other than forum posts.

Sounds like a good story. I would suspect that rather than trying to cover things like this up (as the OP suggested happens) the MTB press just don't have the training to confidently report crime stories.

To be fair I never saw Car magazine doing any features on dodgy car dealers - it's probably really only of interest to people are affected by it.

The recent Giant 29er recall woudl be interesting though, I think - with all the FEA and testing done to get a product to market and then have to recall it - I'd like to understand how the 'real' world differed from the tests and what the manufacturers are doing to change the tests to mirror what happens when people ride them.

There are a few things that make me smile in the bike mags (rarely Singletrack). I was looking back through some old mags and found a WMB where someone asked how to remove square taper cranks when the threads had stripped. I've done that by removing the bolt and riding the bike, their response was cut it off - big risk of cack handed frame damage imho.

I seem to recall the old MBI publishing fairly unresearched routes as well.

As for reporting "crime stories" then a publisher has all of the libel issues that would accompany such a story.

There are no truly bad products out there now

Maybe not in terms of function when new but journalists rarely keep hold of anything long enough to learn too much about long term reliability, which can be shockingly different from one brand to another.
Just ask anyone who has spent a couple of years in a LBS and they'll tell you which bikes come in for linkage bearing replacement most often, which brakes are a pig to get bled, which high end cranks wear their splines at the slightest provocation etc etc.

... and now we hand over to Kate Adie reporting live from interbike.

While I'm in the mood for a rant, I have yet to see any of the MTB press make a feature of the ISIS/External bottom bracket debacle ie how with either of those systems you have to spend the best part of £100 on a BB to get one that lasts anywhere near as long as even a budget square taper item.

Surely such flawed technology should be worthy of journalistic interest?

As someone who's spent a considerable amount of time working in publishing, I can say with some authority that

a) You don't hear the half of it. When I worked at the Guardian, we knew loads of juicy stuff that we wouldn't have dared to publish as it would have created, literally, a war zone or absolutely ruined individual lives. Something Wikileaks has presently thrown out of the window.

b) Every publication has its own agenda. With some obvious notable exceptions, this isn't very sinister. Its just self-preservation

You want investigative journalism? Look to the web. The very nature of printed media means it lacks the immediacy. Especially seeing as most publications are printed monthly. So any publication that wishes to survive must alter its content and become less 'news' based. They just can't compete. So to try to would just hasten your own demise. You have to divert your resources to where they'll be most beneficial (see point b)

I think ST is a prime example of a company doing this really really well. You want news? Go to the website. You want well-written and detailed content. Read the mag

And as to accusations of toadying to manufacturers? Have you read any of Mike Ferrentino's articles? They're the polar opposite of this philosophy

Oh and bear in mind that if you walk into any room containing journalists, designers and photographers - and its after lunch - most of them will be drunk and/or coked up 😉

binners has just made an excellent argument for proper in-depth reporting, though.

If magazines are all fluffy press releases, their website are even worse. Which is OK considering what they are for... Quickly spreading the latest information. binners is right that having such information in the magazine becomes increasingly pointless.

BUT, that strengthens the argument for proper in-depth articles. Well researched and well written. That's where spending time looking at the farce of mountain biking's governing bodies would be good. That's where looking at the kind of long-term experiences of riders would be important. I'd love to hear a Paxman style interview with Raceface about how utterly useless their BBs have been since square taper. Maybe they wouldn't want to give a response - but anyone who doesn't read internet forums wouldn't be able to guess how terrible they are.

Agree with most above that mtb journalism is just entertainment rather than any kind of investigative journalism, as Chips points out there is not a massive amount, of thats sort of thing, that would be of any interest.
The point posters have made before about drugs and cycling/sports is a good one, the whole Operación Puerto case only featured a relatively small number of cyclist compared to the footballer's and tennis players name connected with the scandal, but there governing bodies and the press didn't want to know. Jan Ullrich was thrown out of the tour, Rafa Nadal (who was connected, no idea if actually involved) was issued with pitty from the Wimbledon broadcasters.
[b]But[/b] none of that is very going to really appear in a MTB mag as race reports seem to be a thing of the past (apart from Dirt) when I started mountain biking, racing was one of the main things and the athletes were the stars, now the writers are the 'stars'.
British MTB mags are just reporting on new tech stuff, which is mostly good these days and "We have ridden here" which in most cases is pretty boring, to me. Even road mags at least have a bit more variation and thus more to 'report'. But judging by most post of this forum thats what people look for. So don't blame the mtb press for providing it.

I don't think that MTB magazines are totally uninformative, but like all hobby magazines they are made for enthusiasts, rather than the jaded types you get on here (self included).

You don't want to be buzzing with enthusiasm about where you're going to ride or a new bit of kit you're going to buy, and then pick up a amagazine and read in-depth articles about equipment failures, dodgy sellers or naff sanitised trails.

I think the reason why MBR come in for such a panning (apart from the odd daft statement like "hardtails are dead" that people tweezer out and post up here) is that the tone can be very critical and harsh - not what you want to read if you've just bought the bike they're reviewing.

race reports seem to be a thing of the past

MBUK carry quite a few actually, usually pretty readable.

... investigative journalism, as Chips points out there is not a massive amount, of thats sort of thing, that would be of any interest

Well, there's this for a start.
http://www.numplumz.com/cal/1.htm

Look at all the "Should I try 1x9", "Are 29ers any good", "Which are the best forks" threads on this forum.
Wouldn't race reports with pictures or specs of the top riders' bikes be of interest ? Not just the pros and sponsored riders in international races, but the fast amateurs in club events who buy their own stuff.

[i]Look at all the "Should I try 1x9", "Are 29ers any good", "Which are the best forks" threads on this forum.[/i]

Yup, the forum is doing a great job of satisfying that need hey? :o)

I want to read about riding bikes.

We all love riding. Like you the few hours a week I get out and ride is essential for me. It gets me through the week. And the reasons why ? There are so many - fitness, time away from the kids, time with my mates, being amongst nature, the thrill of going quick. But there's something more. Something i can't put my finger on. It's almost elemental and I love it.

I want to read about this - I want to read about riding.. Something about the poetry and pain of riding up and down these muddy hills of ours. I will put up with some of the endless kit reviews and recycling of press releases but there must be something more. Or maybe not.

I have long given up on the magazines. Singletrack, I think, want to achieve what I am looking for, but the writers seem a bit too concerned with the ‘Singletrack' vibe and get blinded by all the kit. I had high hopes for Privateer. Maybe the second edition will deliver.

Oh well. Back to day dreaming about riding.

Dave, the forum's good for personal opinions about whether 29ers are better than 26ers or not.
The magazine's good for press releases from 29er manufacturers.

What about someone who is thinking of buying a 29er and wants to base their decision on evidence though ?
How about the magazines report on how many of the top riders in the Midlands XC series or Bristol Bike Fest were on 29ers ?
Same goes for 1x9, 2x10, 15mm axles and so on. Wouldn't it be nice to know if they really are any better than the alternatives ?

yes to be fair i forgot about MBUK, which is kind of kiddy-ish but at the same time almost the most rounded of all the magazines out there.
I agree that "what the pro's are using" would be interesting and I think there are innovations that are interesting. What I meant is that 'proper' journalism, investigating the deeper issues behind the tech stuff is hardly that interesting. I'm not that keen to read about legal deputes over patents.
I guess I am just stuck in the past (and grumpy)interested in racing and hearing about what goes on, on the international race scene rather than being focused on 'tech' and "what tyre for this". Do wonder if young people getting in to the sport are really inspired to get fit by middle age men compared to when I started wanting looking up to Tim Gould or John Tomac. Feel rather stuck in the past with this attitude rather than the "ramble" scene that seems to hang around here (I mean on here and locally), sometimes feel more in-tune with roadies or runners these days.
God I am grumpy today!

How about the magazines report on how many of the top riders in the Midlands XC series or Bristol Bike Fest were on 29ers ?
Same goes for 1x9, 2x10, 15mm axles and so on. Wouldn't it be nice to know if they really are any better than the alternatives ?

Surely the fittest bloke (with a good dose of bike handling skills) is going to win, regardless of how their bike is set up. And the pro teams are going to use what they're given, or light kit that can be easily damaged.

Also, spare a thought for the poor race officials. I would hate to have to measure everyone's axle diameter and then put them in their own sub-category.

Surely...

What is the point of bike mags?

Is mountain biking really the sort of seething sewer of iniquity, illegality and drug abuse that would justify it being the subject of incessant investigative journalism? What do you want? 'Top Bike Designer in 29er Sex Romp Shocker!' 'British Bike Brand Equipped Sadam's Army With Singlespeeds!' 'Isis Bottom Brackets In Sex And Drugs Orgy Scandal!'

How about the mags launch an in-depth investigation into who the evil genius behind the Isis bottom bracket was and expose the evil conspiracy behind its introduction? We follow the trail of corruption from Utah to the poppy fields of Afghanistan and expose the truth behind chains that don't work and how the Taliban is fleecing British mountain bikers through shadowy puppet corporations. Blah.

I dunno, call me simple and old fashioned, but I'd simply like to read brilliantly written, inspirational stories about riding bikes in amazing places with interesting people accompanied by stunning imagery. If 'proper journalism' is an in-depth investigation of Isis bottom brackets, you can keep it.

Take this report of Mountain Mayhem for example.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/2010/06/glorious-mayhem-stories-and-results-here/

That's a decent enough example of taking a race weekend and turning it into a kit report. I've not got much against it but having been at the event I would have been more interested in things like why did James Leavesley pass out on the course in the early hours and be taken away in an ambulance? As always there is a lot more that goes on at these races than ever gets reported on.

I thought the build up to races like 24hrs of Exposure on some sites was great as there were profiles of the racers before the event and it was a lot more interesting to know who won when you knew who was who beforehand.

These days there isn't a lot reported about XC racing and I couldn't give you more than one or two names of world cup racers. If there was as bit more build up and profiles ahead of the racing though Id be a lot more interested in following it.

Seems as though its a bit uncool to follow XC racing these days though and its the magazines that are as guilty as anyone else for projecting that view.

If 'proper journalism' is an in-depth investigation of Isis bottom brackets, you can keep it.

I used ISIS as an example of how stuff that has been proven not to work gets brushed under the carpet in favour of the 'hey wow isn't this great' gushing over 'the latest big thing'. It seems that all too often it's Joe Public that gets to do the long term product development and has to pay for the privilige. I've worked as an engineer and have seen first hand that many so called advances are really patent avoidance ploys. What I'd like to see the magazines doing more efectively is sorting the good from the bad.

This is a good example of 'real world' testing;

[url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/doc-says-carbon-no-quicker-than-steel ]http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/doc-says-carbon-no-quicker-than-steel[/url]

In this case £1000 carbon bike against £50 steel one.

From that article...

Dr Groves feels "evidence based cycling is not high on the bicycle salesman’s agenda."

😀

"I've worked as an engineer and have seen first hand that many so called advances are really patent avoidance ploys"

yeah good point. blame a bullsh++t US patent system for that. if they worked on European patent criteria half the so-called patents would not exist and we would have a proper open-source system of genuine R+D where a good bike is based on whether you know what to do and why, not whether you can afford to license some dubious patent.

See this thread here ?
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stu-mcgroos-lets-put-this-alfine-weight-issue-to-bed-once-and-for-all-thread
This is what journalists should be writing.

Mostly Balanced - Member
...I've worked as an engineer and have seen first hand that many so called advances are really patent avoidance ploys.

Like just about any rear suspension system 🙂

The interesting thing is if you look at patents from the 1880 - 90s before the pneumatic tyre became universal, then you'll see an example of almost any of the patented suspension systems.

I'd like to know what factories in the Far East are making what bikes for who.

Start with Giant. They make a lot of the expensively marketed "superior" bikes from USA.

Which is why it makes sense to buy a Giant - get it from the horse's mouth as it were.