Fair enough, but again, which bikes would you call "bad"?
To be clear, I'm not saying everyone who talks about bikes in various media (magazines, websites, YouTube, podcasts) does so critically. I don't watch Missenden Flyer videos either. Even the Daily Rider videos with Zach Courts tread a bit lightly for me, though he does do a decent job of describing what a bike feels like to ride.
Most bikes fill a niche. The V-Strom may not be the 'best' ADV bike, but when you include for value or what people actually need from a bike like that, it's a fantastic choice for many. Same could be said for the GSXS, or CBR650R, or R3 etc. The Africa Twin might not be as good a pure tourer as the GS, or as good off road as the T7, but it slots somewhere in between, and that's a good fit for the right rider. You love the MT09, but not everyone does. It's been criticised for having snatchy fuelling and cheap finish and suspension. It's undeniably a great bike for many, but not for all.
I guess what I'm trying to say with my above post is that I think expecting 'First Ride' reports to be aggressively critical is unfair on journalists. They exist to introduce a bike and give a flavour of the manufacturer's intent and approach. The meat of the journalism and aggressive criticism happens in all the subsequent pieces. Some don't do that, but many do.
At the end of it, I love motorcycles and talking about motorcycles. It's why I spout such nonsense here. But I can't possibly ride every bike I think is interesting, especially in a way that I could be remotely critical about anything beyond basic ergos etc. The journalists that I like and trust fill that gap, and I enjoy that. Some speak more to what I want out of a bike (Michael Neeves) and some are almost guaranteed to like the things I don't and dislike the things I do (Ryan F9, mostly, though I still enjoy his videos). I still read/watch/listen to the good ones, especially the UK magazines (Ride, Bike, MCN and Practical Sportbikes have a ton of great content that's critical, honest and useful, both for new bikes and old ones). Most importantly, with the points of reference that I do have and the bikes I've ridden, it mostly matches up with what the journalists say (though I still think my 2nd Gen ZX-10R is an underrated bike, unfairly compared to the bonkers 1st Gen!)
There aren't many 'rags' left. The big US magazines have closed shop in paper form. I don't know what websites you look at, but many of my go-to's are run by companies selling things related to motorcycles (but not motorcycles themselves) who definitely aren't selling ads from Honda or Ducati. 44 Teeth, Bennett's, Revzilla, F9, for example. Aside from the main funder, they're reliant on Google ads that have nothing to do with anything remotely related to motorcycling. The UK magazines listed above may sell ads, but they offer consumer advice very much in favour of the buyer. It's a different tradition there, and it shows...
