Dissapointed with watch "journalism"

[Exploradori]

This Baselworld2019 made clear to me that there is no honest watch journalism anymore. Just look at their posts of Rolex/Tudor new watches... they are so out of touch with what the WIS community really think. When describing monstrosities such as the BBP01 they manage only to say "unexpected". And this goes not only for Hoodinke (which we already knew was not objective), but really all of them.

Why are they so biased and mild with watch companies? Because they bask in the light that these companies shine on them: invitations to parties, exclusive product unveilings, trips to the factories...

Of course, who loses is us, their readers (not anymore) and the general public who is misled for their own profit.

How disappointing when "journalism" does not speak truth to power anymore --in all fields.

[mangoseed]

I am disappointed with journalism in general.

[Nepats81]

It’s almost as if ... all journalists are corrupt

[Dan Pierce]

We get what we deserve.
dP

[SPMN]

I’ve been feeling that way for some time. I remember reading a story on Hodinkee about how they were invited by Heuer to a race and all I could see on their site after that were glowing Heuer reviews. How many Tudor execs are going to be at Baselworld? Do you think a single “journalist” will ask about why their GMT movements are failing at an astronomical rate?

[watchwatcher]

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

[scrappy]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

This.

[tudorbaja27]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

Chapeau

[nuwildcat928]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

Beautiful.

[jrs146]

Let’s be honest. The journalists have to write articles that they can use to sell ads. What the consumer cares is the last thing on their mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keadog]

Journalism has (almost) always been corrupt to some extent, with an agenda that may not match those of the reader.
It's just easier to notice/compare in the information age.

[Brew]

Now the bubble complains that the world outside of the bubble doesn't take note of the bubbles' desires. Silly bubble.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

You are assuming that the OP only follows Rolex related topics when he may well be just as active in non-Rolex circles.

[Maiden]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

Exactly!

[77T]

It isn’t journalism any more than removing a splinter makes one a Doctor.

Vloggers & Bloggers aren’t able to access their targeted manufacturers without the requisite sycophantic fawning* and drooling.

Investigative reporters, they are not...


* as I’ve cited in another thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CRM114]

Obviously, the watch world needs an enormous scandal, one so large it consumes all the big names, that watch journalists can feast on to keep us entertained between Basels.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by 77T

It isn’t journalism any more than removing a splinter makes one a Doctor.

Vloggers & Bloggers aren’t able to access their targeted manufacturers without the requisite sycophantic fawning* and drooling.

Investigative reporters, they are not...


* as I’ve cited in another thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well said, Paul.
dP

[Chewbacca]

Modern advertorial journos are targeted to the anti-wis for skimming and pictoral shares.

We (most) can see them for what they are, but to be fair, they need to pay the bills. We don’t pay the bills.

[GB-man]

The watch community is very small relative to other industries. If you shit where you eat you might find yourself without much to eat down the road. Can’t say I blame them.

I come here for opinions. I go there for pictures and entertainment.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by GB-man

The watch community is very small relative to other industries. If you shit where you eat you might find yourself without much to eat down the road. Can’t say I blame them.

I come here for opinions. I go there for pictures and entertainment.

That’s very true. James Dowling always threw softballs when interviewing Rolex top brass. As someone mentioned earlier. It would be nice to see an interviewer press Tudor brass about the GMT issues or other watch houses about the buy backs from their AD’s. But you won’t. Because that would be their last time to interview. The watch world is a small world.

[joeychitwood]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

I could not have stated it better.

[superdog]

I’m disappointed in humanity.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Or, could it possibly be that our views are myopic and narrowly focused, and there is actually a world of watch buyers outside of TRF that actually have different tastes and likes than we do?

Sorry, but is that supposed to be an excuse of bad journalistic practices? They are clearly not objective and never criticize watches.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by 77T

Vloggers & Bloggers aren’t able to access their targeted manufacturers without the requisite sycophantic fawning* and drooling.

Investigative reporters, they are not...


* as I’ve cited in another thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not always true. There is some guys like Take Time Pat, The Watch Report, and Two Broke Watch Snobs who do not fawn, drool over the brands unless they believe it is a good product. But one thing about them doing this is they are limited on what companies send them a watch because they speak the truth.

I know some watch companies who will not let you review a watch unless they are allowed to approve the review before it is published. Pretty shitty honestly.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Exploradori

This Baselworld2019 made clear to me that there is no honest watch journalism anymore. Just look at their posts of Rolex/Tudor new watches... they are so out of touch with what the WIS community really think. When describing monstrosities such as the BBP01 they manage only to say "unexpected". And this goes not only for Hoodinke (which we already knew was not objective), but really all of them.

Why are they so biased and mild with watch companies? Because they bask in the light that these companies shine on them: invitations to parties, exclusive product unveilings, trips to the factories...

Of course, who loses is us, their readers (not anymore) and the general public who is misled for their own profit.

How disappointing when "journalism" does not speak truth to power anymore --in all fields.

what do you think happens if you bite the hand that feeds you? they know who the king is and they must kiss the ring. it is that simple. they are nothing without the brands - nothing. additionally, as i said prior many of these reporting websites sell their own inventory and special edition pieces. they dont want to kill access to brand information that drives traffic to the mothership.

[Blansky]

I saw an interview with Ben Clymer and William Massena where they were discussing Basil a couple of years ago. They were bored with all the major players and instead went to the independents.

Both of them seem to own mostly vintage and just don't care much about the "hot" new thing, they just feature them because without the major players they are out of business.

Really not sure if what they do is considered "journalism".

It's more like Entertainment Tonight. Stories on promoting the industry and revealing what's new.

[Burlington]

Sponsored content is everywhere these days in one form or another

[liu_watch]

I have learned how to deal with biased watch journalism: glean the facts from the articles and nothing more! I see the watch spec, photos and make my own judgment, ignoring all their sugar-coated descriptions, thrilled reviews, etc.

[stockae92]

This is what happened when people get paid to say what they think.

I digress. Knowing they are part of the paid advertisement, I set my expectation low on "what they claim they think about the watch", and don't get disappointed.

[ashbaug2]

This topic was discussed at one point on one of the watch podcasts I listen to (I can't remember which one, there are several...) and the devil's advocate argument here is that, as watch enthusiasts themselves, there are few watches that they are not interested in that they write up; for instance, Jason Heaton did a piece last year on Hodinkee covering the Certina DS PH200m diver. He is obviously geared towards dive watches, and the few that he's written up (the Richard Mille survival watch or the Richard Mille diver) that are out of his wheelhouse he admits that openly, while still being impartial in a sense that the watch is completely ostentatious and out of his league, so take it for what it is.

I see everyone referencing the Turdo BB P01 release and how everyone's fawning over it at Basel; maybe there's something in the metal that is lost in pictures? I know right away it is not for me, but I look forward to reading the write-up on it and expect that James Stacey will probably get that one (it's definitely in his wheel house). So maybe they aren't as critical of the watches because they are writing reviews on watches that are predominantly what they would be interested in, so they nit-pick little things. I doubt Jason or James will ever do a write up on an FP Journe or Gruebel Forsey, they wouldn't do it justice.

I also believe there is a certain truth to the idea that they need to speak well of the family for fear of losing access to it. There would be very little watch journalism if they didn't play the game the brands have created.

That said, I'm against the idea that a media outlet peddle certain brands in an online store (I'm looking at you, Hodinkee). I don't find it ethical or impartial, but that's an issue I would have with administration, not necessarily the journalists.

Just my .02!