Not to mention the rather familiar openings of so many of their articles (and one of the reasons I quit my subscription years ago): the I-searched-everywhere-and-tested-dozens-of-recipes-and-none-worked-so-I-had-to-develop-this-gem-on-my-own-as-justification-for-including-it-in-this-issue introduction. Drives me nuts. Really? You found no good [--fill in the blank--] recipes anywhere? Please.
As for so many of their tests, they simply ignore - or comment on but then overlook - key variables. ("Handles were not as important", stated in their 9/2006 issue on their sauté pan test. Their kidding, right? No. Since handles are scarcely mentioned again, they're not.) Or simply state opinion as fact. (From the 5/2009 issue on cookware sets: "Most bundle together a lot of pans we don’t need and not enough of the ones we do—the five or six hardworking multitaskers that we turn to every day. Besides pans in impractical sizes (1-quart saucepans good for little more than melting butter or 8-inch skillets that are only useful if you’re cooking for one)". Who's 'we'? 1-quart saucepans only good for melting butter? On what planet? They're good for, you know, sauces. 8-inch skillets only good if you are cooking for one? Hmm. Well, not if you are an actual, you know, cook.
There are dozens of examples of this sort of dumbed-down-for-the-masses garbage.
Here's the thing: Cooks figured out quite some time ago - long before Food Network and the Cooking Channel took the ball and ran with it - that the largest market out there is a combination of vicarious cooks (those that really don't cook but like to watch), beginner cooks and novice cooks. Everything is geared toward this market. The advanced home cook? The intermediate? The professional. Too small a market to bother with.
Moral of my story: If you are a beginner or novice home cook and have been reading CI and/or watching Food TV for years you've gotten virtually everything you can from it. If you want to get better move on.
