Dissapointed with watch "journalism"

[brandrea]

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 love that word myopic. I agree Brother

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by 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.

Bill Massina was or is a moderator at TimeZone and is very well known to sensor posts that puts down Patek Phillip or anything else he does not agree with. He is one reason this site has so many members. I do know someone who has met him in person that said he was very nice. Just not that way behind a computer screen.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I love that word myopic. I agree Brother

Why?

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by superdog

I’m disappointed in humanity.

lol so true

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

Why?

Because I think TRF represents a very narrow segment of the watch buying population

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[GradyPhilpott]

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.

We WIS are among the least objective watch consumers on the planet.

I won't speak to "watch journalism," but if you're looking for bias, look in the mirror.

[The Pontiff]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

We WIS are among the least objective watch consumers on the planet.

I won't speak to "watch journalism," but if you're looking for bias, look in the mirror.

No one knows more about watches than us. We have our opinions but know what is subjective and what is fact. Speak for yourself!

[Wahlberg]

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.

Kinda like when Chris Harris got banned by Ferrari.

If I remember correctly a similar thing happened to Top Gear and they had use their connections like Nick Masons Ferrari Enzo.

https://www.motoringresearch.com/car...ving-ferraris/

And the same happens to the really small car magazines and channels, they have 0 power. If you shit on any brand don't expect to get invited or test a car, so good luck. So all the reviews are rather positive.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by The Pontiff

No one knows more about watches than us. We have our opinions but know what is subjective and what is fact. Speak for yourself!

I rest my case.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I rest my case.

[asiparks]

Would they describe themselves as journalists ? They're bloggers.

Here's the thing, if you think "journalism" is missing in the horology world, there is literally nothing to stop you starting your own blog, offering whatever insights, criticisms or investigations you want. If Paul Pluta can figure out how to upload to YouTube, pretty sure you can too.

[vipereaper30]

Originally Posted by SPMN

Do you think a single “journalist” will ask about why their GMT movements are failing at an astronomical rate?

I'd love to see this here although I'm sure there would just be a nothing-to-see-here response while said journalist is rapidly escorted off premises.

[subtona]

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

Agreed, if you want in, you have to play the game.

[subtona]

Journalism of most any kind is under tremendous pressure to be first.

A journalist who wants to do a real investigative story does not have the support of their employer and if they are independent they lose their audience to the one who reported first.

It’s a vicious cycle and the way we’ve come to consume news and entertainment makes us a part of it, if we intend to be or not.

[77T]

Originally Posted by The Pontiff

No one knows more about watches than us. We have our opinions but know what is subjective and what is fact. Speak for yourself!

Well...we aren’t the Washington Post...
...and this ain’t Watergate...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Fat_ninja]

Savage

[1William]

Late to the discussion but none of the points made about watch journalists are inaccurate nor are they a surprise. I enjoy information provide by the various outlets but I learned long ago to make decisions for myself regarding all types of journalism. They can halo a watch or can it and I will still make my own decision. A lot of times watches fall into the category of let me see it in person. The Tudor PO1 is one such watch. Initially I was disappointed but now after research and information I am in a wait and see mode.

[Star Ferry]

really hard to be a watch journalist if you can't borrow the product early and for free. Hence Hodinkee referring to every single watch as really "interesting" and "important" and "essential"

Yeah, when I look at $5000+ mechanical watches, I always think: "Damn, that's an essential item, right up there with clean drinking water"

[Syed117]

It's all about access.

Bloggers can rarely be called journalists because they depend on site revenue that is completely based on ads.

No online "journalist" is going to trash any big company when they depend on those companies for access to products that get them that precious site traffic.

[Nepats81]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

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

100% agreed

Wouldn’t be surprised that the people criticizing OP love the fake news media and their fake conspiracy theory’s

Meanwhile these publications and the “honorable” journalists get to the front of the line to buy the watches everyone wants and they are probably flipping them.

It’s completely corrupt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blansky]

I think in most cases we have to understand they are cheerleaders instead of journalists, going in.

With that knowledge we just treat it as interesting fluff from the outset.

[Star Ferry]

what you can get from watch blogs are specs and photos. articles not worth reading

[Rocket_Man]

Modern journalize is pure and simple a business. There is very little integrity in journalize today, but we are mostly stuck in the past expecting journalize to be a source of truth, but it is only our own mindset that thinks that. That's why we are always disappointed in them. Journalist don't think that anymore. They are trying to sell ads and gain access to whatever they are covering.

I personally think journalist who make money doing it should be regulated by an independent board like lawyers, doctors, professional engineers, architects. They should be held accountable by this board, be subject to sanctions for malpractice even losing their license to practice. If you are a blogger, amateur, say what you want, but a journalist who is given certain freedoms to even compromise national security information, you need to be held to a standard. Otherwise don't claim to be a journalist. You are just another person with an opinion.

Maybe we need to call these folks 'Opinionists' since that term fits better than Journalists.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

Modern journalize is pure and simple a business. There is very little integrity in journalize today, but we are mostly stuck in the past expecting journalize to be a source of truth, but it is only our own mindset that thinks that. That's why we are always disappointed in them. Journalist don't think that anymore. They are trying to sell ads and gain access to whatever they are covering.

I personally think journalist who make money doing it should be regulated by an independent board like lawyers, doctors, professional engineers, architects. They should be held accountable by this board, be subject to sanctions for malpractice even losing their license to practice. If you are a blogger, amateur, say what you want, but a journalist who is given certain freedoms to even compromise national security information, you need to be held to a standard. Otherwise don't claim to be a journalist. You are just another person with an opinion.

Maybe we need to call these folks 'Opinionists' since that term fits better than Journalists.

Journalism has always been a business, and has always had a strong bias. And it always will.

[Etschell]

If you want to hear the truth come to trf. No smart media person is slamming ap rolex tudor patek or omega.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by Exploradori

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...

Because their existence is based on ad revenue and clicks. Why annoy the watch companies when you can just write fluff pieces with catchy hashtag words and profit?

[SN13]

It took you until Basel to realize this?

I was entirely put off by the "Watch Journalists" at SIHH....

The AP release response with , and I QUOTE: "OMG WANT!" .... to the $25k Plain vanilla designs.....

That was it. It confirmed the Paid Shill Bias.

[tudorbaja27]

Originally Posted by The Pontiff

No one knows more about watches than us. We have our opinions but know what is subjective and what is fact. Speak for yourself!

[InitialAndPitch]

There’s a distinct difference between advertising and editorial. The difference is that you openly pay for one of them. Editorial or written commentary produced by an independent publication is up to 7 times more powerful/credible than advertising.

Some publications ‘go easy’ on their subjects for two reasons. 1. You won’t get first access to new launches and 2. The manufacturers won’t pay to advertise with you.

[wisguy]

Fully agree with OP and others.

I watch Watchbox videos mostly now, at least they're openly trying to sell you a watch, and Tim knows a thing or two.