The Ethics of Watch Journalism

One of the big bugbears of mainstream watch coverage is questions of ethics and integrity. Take a scroll through the Instagram feeds of the major watch news sites, and you'll see regular complaints about the impartiality of the title or the author — which typically imply that everything they write about is paid for by 'Big Watch' either directly or indirectly.

The thing is, they're not wrong. But they're also not quite right either. The reality is, unsurprisingly, more complex than an angry comments section, and there's good and bad. So, what does ethical watch journalism look like in 2024?

We're not saving lives

If you spend enough time in press rooms at watch conventions (or on the luxury junkets euphemistically termed as 'press trips'), you'll inevitably meet a jaded watch editor or two who will note that watch journalists aren't in the business of saving lives. It's a truth that holds within it a deeper understanding of about how society views journalists — and by extension — the media.

Journalism as a profession has been historically built around the ideals of a strict code of ethics, with cornerstones of independence, objectivity and impartiality. At its best, journalism is capable of changing the course of history — galvanising nations, uncovering corruption and toppling heads of state. That's the image most people have of 'journalism', but it can be easy to forget that journalism can also be used to influence democracy, ruin lives and spread misinformation. How we communicate and inform has always been relevant, especially in this increasingly polarised era of social media, so it's only natural that specialist watch media is part of this discourse.

Now, it would be wild to suggest that your favourite watch YouTuber can change the history of the world, but they aren't without influence. People buy costly watches based on the opinions of these experts, so trust matters, which is why the assertions that they've been paid (in cold hard cash, free watches or the aforementioned luxury junkets) are so common. This type of criticism is that they're also really valid takes. Professional watch publications need to pay for content. Traditionally, that revenue is coming from advertisers or, more recently, actual watch sales. So, there are some real issues around impartiality or objectivity.

The problem with reviews

Many watch publications use news and reviews fairly interchangeably. But more often than not, the term 'review' is used to describe a specific way of writing a product-focused editorial to discuss a new watch's features. It's rare that the author has spent any real time with the watch, and it's not uncommon for them to have never seen that watch in person at all. This is one problem with the review format, but it isn't as bad as some people think — people who do this for a living typically have the skills and knowledge to effectively communicate the feel of a watch.

More of an issue is 'what' watches get talked about. It's the rare watch title that discloses (as they often legally should) when reviews are paid for in one form or another. And even when a specific piece of content hasn't been paid for by a brand, the Venn diagram between brands covered and significant sponsors is very close to a circle. Of course, there are a few exceptions — if a brand generates significant traffic, there's another incentive to talk about it. Still, when every major media site enthusiastically covers a niche hundred-thousand-dollar watch, it's pretty safe to assume that money is changing hands.

Valuing expertise

At the end of the day, though, the money has to come from somewhere. Quality content from industry experts (and enthusiastic influencers) isn't free. Making a living off reader-paid content is difficult, leaving advertising or sales as the best options. It isn't perfect, but it's what we've got. The other side of the coin is the importance of critical media literacy skills — people on the internet are trying to sell you things. If this is news to you, we're sorry to be the ones to break it to you. The skill, though, is to find the real value and the insight between the advertorials. It's the rare professional watch writer who isn't passionate on some level about the watches they discuss, and most of them know their stuff. Will they cover things to pay the bills — yes. Will that also give them the ability to write about things that are genuinely cool and would otherwise get lost in the shuffle? Also yes.

So, are watch media titles the paragons of ethical behaviour? No more or less than anyone else creating content on the internet. Do they deserve to be called out for shady or unscrupulous practices — sure. But it's also worth remembering the wider context. Most of the people working in this very niche sector are balancing passion and professionalism, doing what they have to to make a living doing something they genuinely care about.