I have been reading magazine road tests since the February 1962 Cycle World issue, which I still have. (Before that it was the Clymer Cycle magazine which was more of a multi-page advertisement that you had to buy yourself.) I have always found the magazine reviews interesting, although they became less so when the internet and YouTube became a thing. But you are absolutely correct with your observation regarding the magazines saying that the new version is now perfect and corrected the problems with last year's perfect model, whose problems were never mentioned. 
I have a longtime friend who used to be a freelance magazine motorcycle new model reviewer. He specialized in new BMW models and during the 1990's he was flown to exotic locations where he was wined and dined by BMW and then got to ride the new model around beautiful local back roads. But then he bought a new BMW bike for himself and started noticing issues with it, including poor assembly and advertised functions that didn't work properly. He then made the mistake of writing an article regarding his problems with that new BMW model that came to the attention of BMW. He was then blackballed throughout the industry. He was no longer invited to review new BMW bikes and none of the major magazines, including Cycle World, would publish any of his articles. He finally reverted to writing user technical articles for companies that made products that did not have anything to do with motorcycles.
As I am sure you are aware, print magazines have always depended upon advertisements to stay afloat and they have always had to kiss the butt of their advertisers with good product reviews if their staff writers wanted to keep their jobs - as well as being flown to exotic locations to be wined and dined to see the latest new motorcycle models. As always, take any review, written or of the YouTube variety, with a large grain of salt. 
Full disclosure: I was technical editor at a major motorcycle magazine, which I'd prefer not to name for 15 years, and did freelance and on staff work for several others prior to that. Everything you say is 100% accurate. I can tell you that the OEM's would routinely ask for "clarification" whenever something they didn't like was printed. I also know of several instances when they demanded a sit down with the editors and publishers where they made it perfectly clear that they'd pull their advertising if we ever ran something like that again. I once commented that it was a good thing a particular bike's rear brake turned on the brake light, because other than that it served no purpose, and spent the next week defending my statement to the editor, who'd never ridden the bike and the OEM. Who's main argument was that it was a price point issue.
At one time I worked for Rick "Super Hunky" Seiman, Editor in Chief of Dirt Bike Magazine, by turns he lost the Suzuki, Husqvarna, and Maico accounts and eventually his job, because he refused to gloss over problems with their bikes.
I can also tell you that during press intros the companies would go out of their way to keep us entertained, I know of one instance when hookers were supplied during a sport bike intro. And we always found gifts from the OEM in our motel rooms on arrival. At a metric cruiser intro, one of the sales managers handed me a box of premium Macanudo cigars, and said "We hope you enjoy these as much as we expect you to enjoy the new XYZ. "
During my time in the industry I found the majority of journos to be honest and ethical guys, some more so than others, but as a rule there was a decent level of integrity there. Unfortunately there was also a dark underbelly, everyone knew they needed to keep the advertisers happy, because without them they couldn't stay in business, which in turn led to a lot of cynicism at least in private. To bad few of the "bold new graphics" jokes ever made it into print.
So yeah, always take any press review no matter where you see or read it with a very large grain of salt.
Topic: 'Cycle World' Review of Himalayan (Read 2312 times)