Jaeger-LeCoultre

You're right.  You bring up a very good point.  I always try to behave like I would in person, at a cocktail party.  If I were at a cocktail party, I would vehemently try to correct inaccurate depictions of the watch industry by watch journalists and vloggers who put way too much emphasis on their personal opinions.  In cocktail parties, it's difficult to make a distinction in being generous or to be honest.  Nobody wants to look like a complainer, but if you're always too generous and you never criticize, your opinion becomes worthless.  If you always criticize and you're never generous, your opinion becomes worthless.  I try to be as honest as possible and I try to attack the facts of the case.  You're right, in Jenni Elle's case, she's presenting opinions, but at the same time she's presenting her opinions as facts, this makes it a tough grey area.  I can be generous, but that'd just be going with the flow and essentially spreading her heavily biased opinions.  That's why I took the road less taken and strongly disagreed with her presentation and I publicly stated she had heavily biased opinions and she doesn't back up any of her opinions with factual statistics or any other facts, other than her personal circle of acquaintances gave her a certain impression.  Make no mistake, I'm not defending JLC (I like JLC, but I'm not a fanboy who thinks JLC can do no wrong), I'm simply just stating the quality of her content is heavily biased, of little value, and of low quality from a journalistic perspective. 

This is an easy scenario: there was a Hodinkee employee who stated on camera that a Rolex takes a year to make!  That's just factually incorrect!  Black and white, it's 100% wrong.  But when you carry that Hodinkee employee name, you cant fault a researcher who cites that incorrect fact as a fact and puts it in his bibliography and references in his report. 

Here, in Jenni Elle's case, she isn't factually incorrect.  Her opinions are just very lukewarm and unproven opinions.  But she is implying that her very narrow viewpoint should be adopted by more people and she is spreading her very biased viewpoint upon the many thousands of people who watch her vlog.  She is using her influence to spread poor quality information, something I do not take kindly to.  Some people will accept what she has stated to be true, and some will even cite her in bibliography as fact!  I was taught by my teachers at a young age to identify biases and to look for factual statements and opinion statements.  We had to underline the factual statements, then we had to circle the opinions.  Example: "The baboon monkey has five fingers per hand and has a loud howl."  "Five fingers" is stated as a fact, but we don't know if it's accurate or not; and "loud" is stated as an opinion and this opinion will vary from person to person, this will never be a fact.  If the sentence stated a "loud howl in excess of 80 decibels" then that would be a factual statement.  We then had to check if the facts were accurate (and we didn't have the internet back then, so it was into Encyclopedia Britannica we delved) and we found out the baboon does have five fingers. 

Another thing I learned from a much wiser mentor in my early 20s; You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.  I'm not saying Jenni Elle is trying to intentionally fool people; but she is fooling herself if she doesn't realize that she's doing exactly that.  I suspect and opine that Jenni Elle is trying to produce regular content to work the YouTube algorithm to maximize ad revenue and pad her income.  Unfortunately, we all get writers block and she's sometimes at a loss for good topics to discuss, therefore she has to resort to these poorly conceived topics like this example.  My suspicions and opinions, but at least I back up my presumptions with a logic chain. 

Lastly, Jenni Elle isn't a true journalist (and I don't know if she claims to be one).  A journalist reports the news and "raw" facts and allows the viewer/reader to draw their own "cooked" conclusions.  A journalist can be heavily biased and only present a specific set of facts that would force a reader to draw a specific conclusion (which unfortunately happens).  But a journalist doesn't spew tremendous amounts of "fully cooked" conclusions like Jenni Elle does. 

On the Millennial subject, I don't know Jenni's age, I don't know if she's citing millennials or not, I don't know if she is a millennial or not (I presume she is, but I'm not sure).  But none of that really changes what I think of her.  Even just from an audio-only perspective, I'd find the content of this specific video to be low quality.  If you're going to make an argument and call it a "serious problem" then she has to convince me that it's a serious problem; and frankly, she identified three relatively small problems about JLC's brand and only identified them and didn't even mention why it was necessarily a "serious problem" for JLC.  There's no chain of logic.  The jury is still waiting to hear why the problem is "serious" to JLC.  I expect high quality content to have a complete argument.  Her argument is incomplete. 

  login to reply