I have a problem with the tech article I saw for the Scott Spark 35 http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/scott-spark-35. Although not a mtber, I read it on a whim. The point of contention I have is that appears to be completely written as advertising copy. Not one appreciable negative was found with the bike, other then the token SRAM does not have gear indicators. The kicker is that the byline is "Cycling News", so it seems to be completely without merit or credit.
I very much appreciated James Huang's pieces since they are critical and appears to have been written with a serious engineering background. I don't always agree with his engineering analysis, but I appreciate the attempt. Plus, he appears to approach products with the appropriate critical eye. While I understand that an engineering degree is a luxury that most journalist cannot afford, I found the current piece to be entirely without integrity due to the lack of any kind of criticism. Was it really that perfect? Please do not mix the journalism with the advertising without notice. Thank you.
I very much appreciated James Huang's pieces since they are critical and appears to have been written with a serious engineering background. I don't always agree with his engineering analysis, but I appreciate the attempt. Plus, he appears to approach products with the appropriate critical eye. While I understand that an engineering degree is a luxury that most journalist cannot afford, I found the current piece to be entirely without integrity due to the lack of any kind of criticism. Was it really that perfect? Please do not mix the journalism with the advertising without notice. Thank you.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram