In the aftermath of the tragic death of 3x surfing world champion Andy Irons, the surfing journos have taken a lot of flack from readers for allegedly covering up the alleged drug-related circumstances surrounding it for fear of upsetting sponsors’ clean image and thus advertising revenue. 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. It got me thinking – is it the same in mountain biking? If there was an issue with the big manufacturers of retailers would we find out? I can’t remember any kind of issue having ever been reported – is the mtb industry really that squeaky clean? In light of the current mint-sauce-gate, what would mainstream media do if say a celeb artist had taken money for specific art work and not delivered? Would they report it, or ignore it?

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 Edited. Defamatory. Not our view. Mod 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.

Sorry chap, cleaned up what you quoted so removed the name

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 Name removed. Mod 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…

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.

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.

“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? “

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.

2retro4u
Marin County, Cali

I published the first mountain bike magazine, the Fat Tire Flyer, 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* already knew 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 feckers 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 matter 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 😉