Quote (from Nephron):
"If they banned fat old fart know-it-all losers in mid-life crisis and deleted everything in their mags except the bike pictures and ads, I'd buy it."
Really? Speaking as an old-fart loser right in the epicenter of a midlife crisis, I think I resent that. Truly, though, I think that Dirt Bike and some of the other mags get a bad rap. There's no doubt that they are favorably disposed toward their big advertizers, but I really don't believe that anything so crude as a quid pro quo is going on. I just think that the Yamahas, for whatever reason, have suited their testers' personal tastes better than the other bikes. And let's face it; the Yamahas have been very good lately.
Also, in fairness to them, they always point out that all the bikes are very close, and that different riders will prefer different bikes. Personally, I like to see them pick a winner, even if it is somewhat arbitrary. I don't like the tests where the ultimate judgment is, "These are all good bikes, and depending on your style, any one of them can work for you." While that may be true, I read for entertainment as well as information, and I like to see how they came down on the issue of choice.
Anyway, I really think that while we might disagree with their picks, there's no need to insult the editors personally and to accuse them of corruption, without some good proof. Is there any credible evidence of impropriety, or is this all just supposition?