As you know, TTAC has a simple posting policy: no flaming the website, it's authors or fellow commentators. As some commentators have [rightly] pointed out, the policy contains a glaring inconsistency: we allow flaming of third parties. GM Car Czar Bob Lutz, Toyota, The New York Times, President Bush, etc. have all been flame-broiled on this site. [NB: if Bob Lutz or George Bush posted on TTAC, they'd have anti-flame protection.] My only defense for this obvious double standard: it works. I'm not going to make that case by pointing to any of the incisive remarks penned by our Best and Brightest. Instead, I'd like to draw your attention to the comments (and picture of a douche) underneath a Jalopnik link to my last GM Death Watch. If you share some of these sentiments about TTAC, I invite you to voice them right here, right now. All I ask is that you do so in a civilized manner. Because that's who we are, and that's what you do. Meanwhile, Justin and I discuss the day's news.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
RF
You can’t really be concerned with what the likes of COLASSAL POLA(backards R) have to say. His rebuttal came off like some nine year old who just leaned how to curse.
Or how about the poster who said that GM just needed to make more money to be successful…Lord help these poor people.
At first I thought your question to Mr. Lutz was little self indulgent, but when I challenged myself to come up with something better and to which I would have believed his response, I came up blank. Your question itself wasn’t that great, but it did reveal a little bit about how the man thinks…scary.
I don’t agree with a fair bit that is written here and I often think you are unduly harsh on the domestics but to be honest I have always thought that you wrote that way because you actually gave a shit about them. Maybe I’m wrong.
I also understand how some people would see an import bias on TTAC. I did. I think some people need to reflect a little on what makes a successful mass market vehicle manufacturer. I would submit that being profitable (for more than one quarter) would be a good place to start.
For the record, I hate the Prius, don’t really like Toyota, love Honda, think I might be in love with Katie Pukrick, drive a Ford and will soon be buying a Mazda.
I guess it depends on how you define “flaming.”
I am a passionate believer in the value of heated debate. Pointed comments should be welcomed. Contrarian analysis supported by facts should be encouraged. Rancor is to be expected.
The problem here is that cars are a highly emotional topic for a lot of people. The fanboys in particular get hung up on certain brands, and believe that anyone who doesn’t share their passion is wrong, just because. They then offer poorly constructed arguments, accusing everybody who doesn’t share their thought processes of being “biased.”
(Apparently, if one’s opponent is biased, then there is no need to actually prove your point. Screaming about how much the other guy is biased is good enough.)
Bottom line: Criticism should be encouraged, but the criticism needs to show that some thought has been put into it. It should be OK to accuse the site of “bias,” but if someone is going to play the bias card, then they should have a good argument to back it up. Otherwise, it’s just name calling, and of no value to anyone.
I’d say that 90+% of the bias accusations are just limp-wristed outbursts. I don’t say that because I disagree with them, but because the slags lack intellectual rigor or supportive evidence.
It’s fine to disagree, but you need to be smart about it. I would like this site to be better than a schoolyard. If the critics would invest more thought into their comments, they could figure out a way to criticize without resorting to flaming for the sake of it.
I haven’t read Jalopnik in ages (I’ve been boycotting Gawker blogs due to Gizmodo’s ridiculous tubgirl stunt) and judging from the commentators I haven’t been missing a lot of intelligent debate.
Calling out incompetent execs and highlighting their ridiculous compensation for a poorly done job does not equal hatred or gloating in my view.
Anyway the site here is great as-is, don’t change a thing. Except more Lieberman reviews, please!
Pch101 : It should be OK to accuse the site of “bias,” but if someone is going to play the bias card, then they should have a good argument to back it up. Otherwise, it’s just name calling, and of no value to anyone. There’s one and only one reason why I don’t allow posters to accuse TTAC or its authors of bias: it ALWAYS hijacks the thread. Which raises another [I hope seemingly] arbitrary part of our posting policy: no discussion of TTAC’s editorial stance or style underneath a post unrelated to that topic. Whenever such comments are made, I remove them and ask the poster to correspond with me privately. And, from time to time, I put up an editorial or blog post on editorial bias to let aggrieved commentators vent their collective spleen. I am not thin-skinned. I’m just zealous about trying to keep the focus on the truth about cars.
Wow! You get posts made about you on a Gawker website? I’ve been trying to get commenting privileges on Deadspin for two years now.
I purposely try to stay out of the more “heated” news items (and almost all reviews) because I know I’m likely to get intellectually lit up by someone with a lot more conviction and passion than me if I ever stir any controversy.
I don’t have any real complaints about TTAC’s editorial policies right now (although there are a few cars I really wish you would review ).
One thing I do like about your editing policy is that I think it shows you are fanatically devoted to the website’s mission, so I know I won’t log on one day to find TTAC’s front page is now a Robert Farago pimpatorial for Scion (or something like that).
I had one post cut by RF since it exceeded the snarkiness limits. I deserved it. But, really, all sites need the dumbass police. Those who have none are trite and unreadable. But, I do see a kernel of truth in the complaint. This site can be unrelentingly bitter to the point of turning some off. However, it’s entertainment as well as information so you gotta cut it some slack.
RF, I read the link to Jalopnik. This is the first time I have ever been on the site and what I read is somewhat discouraging. It appears that many of the posters there are incapable of dissenting in a civilized manner. I defend their right to disagree, but for God’s sake have some decorum and class. No one is always right but they do seem a bit rabid to me. I would love nothing better than to see our American motor companies turn around and produce a MAJORITY of their vehicles that were actually worthy of keeping. I see very little of this.
Let me add, I currently own a 96 S10 pickup extended cab, a 98 Toyota Tacoma, a 99 Chevrolet Tracker and an 06 Scion XB. I have owned a 67 Fury III, a 59 Brookwood wagon, a 63 Plymouth forgot the name wagon (LOL), a 70 Cutlass Supreme, a 72 LeMans, a 71 MGB convertible,a 69 Opel Kadette wagon, an 85 Nissan pickup, a 91 Ford Escort Wagon. Ask me which one I loved the best. Without a doubt the XB. The S10 beats the crap out of the Tacoma in almost all respects. The Fury was a blast (big as the QE II). But give me the XB. My point is I have owned a fair variety of vehicles and have driven many more for extended periods of time. Every company has a car ot two that is a piece of crap, but the big 3 have been shall we say pushing it a little.
Thanks for letting me digress.
I’d sum up all the ad hominem comments about Farago on that Jalopnik post in one word: venting. Clearly, any comments like those would be deleted here with a quickness. Perhaps the Jalop commenters just wanted some catharsis.
But I’m SOOO glad the lollipop sucker is gone. And it’s too bad that Jalopnik is under Gawker media. I love el Jalop (and occasionally visit a few others), but I hate Gawker with a passion.
What is interesting in this case is this: I asked Barger if he was TTAC-aware. “Sure, you guys hate us.” So, the spin-doctors behind Bob Lutz is “TTAC-Aware”. Which means they certainly reads what’s posted here. TTAC is thus influental, as the message gets through to the people in charge. This is just not about being biased anymore, or flaming discussion boards. This is about making yourself heard. And loud. The point is: TTAC is important. The discussions here are important. Peoples different views are important. And confronting criticism is important. What I find intriguing is why people like Bob Lutz does not charge TTAC head on. It would be very interesting to see him invited for an open discussion on this board. And why not? It would be great drama. Great publicity. People would be listened to. Their voices heard. And that goes for ANY third party protection. If a third party feels cheated in any way, well, invite them for an open discussion on the matter. With strict rules for all sides. You can’t be biased if all are invited to participate. And as for the anti-flaming policy. It is good. And it is needed. Complete freedom leads to chaos. Anarchy is not leading without rules, it is ruling without a leader.
Ha! Justin got confused with the Canadian figures.
As for the comments, how many of those guys follow through on an email, let alone an editorial?
Ingvar :
What I find intriguing is why people like Bob Lutz does not charge TTAC head on. It would be very interesting to see him invited for an open discussion on this board. And why not? It would be great drama. Great publicity. People would be listened to. Their voices heard.
I did just that. After being denied access to the blogger’s pow-wow, I invited Barger (and by proxy Bob Lutz) to post on TTAC any time they’d like, without editing (800 words). I told him he could do so after every GM Death Watch or blog post if he’d like.
In fact, I have asked GM to comment since the series began, lo those many years ago. Not ONCE have they responded. Perhaps they don’t want to “dignify” our analysis with a reply. So be it.
Some day, car companies will realize that the internet has destroyed PR’s primacy. What’s needed now is an open, frank and ongoing discussion with customers, dealers, suppliers– the whole “community” supporting their endeavors. The first company that embraces the internet’s true potential will have an enormous commercial advantage.
In short, I know we (as in OUR community) are strong medicine, but I believe in my heart of hearts TTAC is good for the industry. If they but knew it.
At first I thought your question to Mr. Lutz was little self indulgent, but when I challenged myself to come up with something better and to which I would have believed his response, I came up blank. Your question itself wasn’t that great, but it did reveal a little bit about how the man thinks…scary.
Be honest with yourself. Would have believed any response you got from Bob Lutz?
What I find intriguing is why people like Bob Lutz does not charge TTAC head on. It would be very interesting to see him invited for an open discussion on this board. And why not? It would be great drama. Great publicity. People would be listened to. Their voices heard.
Be honest and put yourself in Lutz’s shoes. Why would he want to make an appearance on a website that has an award in his name to highlight some of the more outrageous quotes by auto execs? Having seen what you guys did to Phil Ressler when he penned his ‘In Defense Of:” piece, I shudder to think what you’d do to him, Wagoner, Mually, or Nardelli.
Well..I just read the Jalopnik link and I duly appreciate the civility of the forums here. The comments over there do nothing to lessen the truth of my old aphorism “never underestimate the stupidity of the average person.” RF gets a good deal of respect from me for responding and taking the heat. Wrong or right, he’s got the guts to show up for the fight.
Darn I forgot the 69 LTD
The question is: Do you desire to be the McLaughlin Report where your role is to create & supervise the framework for discussion, or are you Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olberman with a nightly agenda and known tilt?
If you want to be perceived as the former, you’re failing badly because your behavior is countervaling to your objective. If you choose the latter, everything I’ve seen so far is appropriate, dissenters be damned. On conduct, one has to conclude that, just as Keith Olberman cannot get through a telecast without an amusing but nevertheless personal attack on Bill O’Reilly, you can be counted on to villify our domestic automobile industry with more intensity than you attack the gaffes and boneheaded decisions of companies and their executives located outside the US. You might argue that the frequency of Detroit 3 villification in your missives is justified by the incidence of mismanagement in their ranks, but the language of your domestic attacks appears markedly more vituperative and cheerleading for failure, than when your ire is directed toward Japan and Germany. It’s understandable that some people perceive bias and are alienated by it.
Now, it doesn’t bother me and I am perfectly willing to disagree when I do. I assume I am on someone else’s blog, which by definition will be biased and undemocratic. On the other hand, you’ve accommodated plenty of dissent in my experience, and leverage controversy to expand awareness and audience for TTAC and yourself. But if you wanted to be perceived differently than you are outside of TTAC, you could elevate your role to framer and let others battle out your favored objects of vitriol. Are you editor, statesman or firebrand prick? You can’t really be all three. Pick editor, and you might miss the direct combat. Pick statesman and you’ll have to blunt your edge (and perhaps upgrade your events wardrobe) to be taken seriously by serious businesspeople. Pick firebrand, and you’ll have to endure pictures of a douche product.
You can’t be both Eisenhower and Patton. You can’t be both Ben Bradlee and HL Mencken. You can’t be both Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger. You can’t be both Bob Dylan and Lawrence Welk.
If there were clarity to your ambition in this endeavor, you wouldn’t ask this question. You’d either not give gnat’s whisker or you’d know exactly what to do.
So, what does Robert want for himself and TTAC?
Phil
You might argue that the frequency of Detroit 3 villification in your missives is justified by the incidence of mismanagement in their ranks, but the language of your domestic attacks appears markedly more vituperative and cheerleading for failure, than when your ire is directed toward Japan and Germany.
The problem is that Detroit makes more frequent and more grandiose mistakes than do their rivals, so the Big 2.8 give critics a lot more to complain about.
You would be hard pressed to find an industry analyst or academic who doesn’t find serious problems with Big 2.8 management and operations, or who doesn’t benchmark Toyota as the master of efficient, reliable production. In the business world, these are accepted as uncontroversial statements of fact, backed up by enough research, data and understanding of best practices to know that there isn’t much to dispute.
Any neutral study of the subject forces one to reach the conclusion that Toyota is simply a better run company. The market agrees, which is why their stock has a higher valuation, even though they sell fewer units.
Truth is always a defense against bias. Facts that are inconvenient are still facts.
That being said, the sarcastic tone can be misinterpreted as bias, even by those who may have good intentions. The site makes an effort to make its points humorously, but I’m sure that not everyone gets or appreciates that.
Phil Ressler:
So, what does Robert want for himself and TTAC?
To tell the truth about cars.
I did just that. After being denied access to the blogger’s pow-wow, I invited Barger (and by proxy Bob Lutz) to post on TTAC any time they’d like, without editing (800 words). I told him he could do so after every GM Death Watch or blog post if he’d like.
In fact, I have asked GM to comment since the series began, lo those many years ago. Not ONCE have they responded. Perhaps they don’t want to “dignify” our analysis with a reply. So be it.
Well, that’s good. And keep doing that. Because one day people like Lutz will wake up and realize that’s the only way to go.
What is important is keeping the door open. Otherwise, it is a one-way communication, and that’s not communicating at all. That’s propaganda.
And self-criticism is good. I’ve said it before, and I can say it again: Meta-discussions like this is the proof that TTAC is not biased in any way. Show me ANY discussion-board where self-reflective discussions like this takes place, where diametricaly opposed people are invited to speak their truth, where third-party interests are invited to defend themselves. If TTAC were biased in any way, this discussion wouldn’t even exist.
And if You feels cheated, well, make yourself heard.
Robert,
There’s a difference in telling “the truth about cars” and being perceived as doing so. Your answer is insufficient for moving you beyond the former, if you care to. On the other hand, if you don’t care to manage yourself and TTAC into the latter, then you don’t have to change anything nor care what anyone else perceives. As soon as more than one human is observing something external to themselves, all truth looks like bias to somebody.
You can opt to consciously manage your public persona into a position of expanding influence and broaden the circle of comprehension for what you’re attempting, even if the ratio of dissenters to supporters remains the same. It’s marketing.
Phil
Phil Ressler
You can opt to consciously manage your public persona into a position of expanding influence and broaden the circle of comprehension for what you’re attempting, even if the ratio of dissenters to supports remains the same. It’s marketing.
I’m too old and too ugly to pursue anything other than WYSIWYG. Besides, TTAC is not a TV show. It’s an instant, interactive website whose commentators are at least as important as its (paid) content originators.
More importantly, this is not about me.
I am, as I’ve said, many times, a slave to the brand. Just as I wouldn’t expect you to pull any punches in your dedication to telling the truth (excluding attacks on the website, its authors and fellow commentators), I can’t commit myself to anything less than a no-holds-barred “call it like I see it” approach to the car industry and its products.
RF,
You have managed to have a site where there is actually a discussion. Your policies are working. Gratz.
It’s also good that Jalopnik is there to do their thing, because otherwise those guys would be here overrunning the place.
Well RF, Mr Ressler should have life time imunity
the best writer,bar none on the pro domestic side.
Wether you want to admit or not TTAC is anti domestic and that is the perception out there.I mean really the number one gig here is GM death watch.Do you not think it’s wearing a little thin? Whats the count of negative GM pieces in the last 3 weeks?
Bob Lutz is the number 2 man in one of the biggest car companys in the world.The guys 70+ and he looks great.He makes millions a year and flies planes for a hobby.His wife is model material.So I guess that should make him an object of ridicule at TTAC.
Hey I read every word on TTAC every day,and I can name the trained seals that clap thier hands at all the anti domestic crap.I won’t though.
Robert go through the list of all the people youv’e banned and find me one pro import guy.
Just my thoughts here,but for TTAC to grow and be taken seriosly,you got to drop the bias.
Having had a comment or two deleted on TTAC in the not so distant past, I can say that I’ve already been on the wrong side of the fence w/RF. That being said, the immature “criticism” of TTAC/RF on Jalopnik serves further proof that we must keep TTAC what is it now: the premier source on the web for INTELLIGENT car talk.
I used to be a moderator on Mazda3Forums.com and spent many hours trying to keep that site organized and free of technical errors as well as insults and the like, but after a year or so, I gave up. Some time after that, I found TTAC.
I always question what I read here, like any rational human being would/should. Unlike other sites where the discussion quickly turns into degenerate jabs (I’m looking at you AB), TTAC’s policies do work and make the site something unique: a place where car enthusiasts can discuss their passion in a civil manner. So count me in among those that say “Thank you TTAC!” for telling it like it is because I strongly believe that only through constant dialogue and constant questioning of even the most sacred subjects there can be progress. And only a society that facilitates this dialogue, and thus progress, can evolve.
On the other hand, RF’s question to Lutz seemed the wrong one to ask given the occasion (too soft IMO), but you have to get your foot in the door with the big guy somehow…
There’s lots of truth out there. It’s been said that bias lies in what you write about, not how you write it. Say what you want, the story of American automobile manufacturing is one hell of a yarn. The fact that the story isn’t all flowers and sunshine right now is not the fault of the storyteller.
And why the TTAC-Jalopnik hate? Anybody remember what happened to ‘Pac and Biggie?
“Bob Lutz is the number 2 man in one of the biggest car companys in the world.The guys 70+ and he looks great.He makes millions a year and flies planes for a hobby.His wife is model material.”
And GM sales is till rising? Profitability up? GM is not losing money in the billions anymore? They have a brand new bag of good, reliable and beautiful cars that people actually wants to buy?
Honestly…after ridiculing Hyundai/Kia for not throwing out a convict, slating a Japanese maker for talking down to women drivers and constantly monitoring the primetime soap that breaks out every time a German CEO is involved, you’d think people would realize it’s not so one-sided.
I can explain the pro-domestic whining in two words: selective memory. They log every single Deathwatch in their memory banks and fume, knowing that they can’t make any witty retorts because it’s all true. When some bad news comes out from elsewhere or they get a less-than-stellar review, they all pop out of the woodwork, and almost in unison, chortle non-stop during the thread with their usual weak sarcastic comments about “perceived superiority” and “The Evil Empire” and our recent buzzword “import bigot”.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think the posting policy is censorship with chocolate frosting all over it. The thing is…after clicking the link, I’ve now had a taste of the Wild Wild West of car blogging, and suddenly I feel like just eating frosting. Going to Left Lane News isn’t much better. After a Canadian defended Buzz Hargrove’s recent remarks (which isn’t a popular stance here), not two minutes later someone called him “a dumbf*ck”. And that advances the conversation…how???
Well, I’ll just put it this way.
The most important freedom we have on the internet is the ability to openly discuss ideas in a ‘civil ‘matter. When I take the time to write my words down onto this wonderful modern day parchment called TTAC, I subconsciously adjust my writing level to that of the folks I address at this forum. More importantly, because I can read the ideas of people who are well experienced with certain unique aspects of the business, I get to actually rethink and reconsider my positions.
Here are a few…
1) Scion Xb – I used to think that it was simply a terrible poseur vehicle. I considered it a mini minivan for those who were simply too self conscious to drive a minivan. Along comes Mr. Niedermeyer, a fellow whose writing and life’s experiences are so brilliantly written that it can even make a Chrysler LeBaron sound interesting. Now I actually like that damn Xb. But now I want one in a trombone case red interior a la the Chryslers of yore. Maybe some Lawrence Welk on the $999 Toyota only 8-Track cassette.
2) Jaguar – Nobody in my neck of the woods believes in this marque. The X-Type is considered a Mondeo derived embarassment, the S-Type has looked like a de-tusked walrus for most of it’s life, and the XK just seemed to be the only convertible in it’s class that doesn’t actually get better with age. That along with the supposed reliability of Kias and Land Rovers make Jaguars a non-consideration for most traveling professionals in the car business.
Then some poor shmuck here actually has the cajones to put five stars on the lame duck S-Class. I end up driving one… and liking it. My favorite is still a Jaguar XJR, but I think the in depth analysis of many cars that have been improved radically over the years is one of the hallmarks of this site. The Ford Freestyle, Nissan Murano, Volvo S60 and Pontiac Grand Prix have all been reviewed at the tail end of their lives and I really do consider that to be beneficial for car buyers the world over.
3) The Legacy Factor – Besides the fact that most of your readers like Subarus (although Volvos are often better) this is one of the very few places on the net that will openly discuss just about anything automotive in a civil fashion. That’s important if you really take the time to think about it. Even if it’s not the news of the day. Even if there isn’t a dollar bill attached to the subject matter, it’s discussed and debated.
For example. Pontiac Grand Prix. Who buys them? Apparently not many but we at least see how that model is representative of the manufacturer that produces it. The Volvo S60, Subaru models that have yet to be discovered by the general public, the imapct of scrap metal recycling (upcoming article), virtually everything Chrysler sells today. These are things that are discussed to amazing detail here that would usually result in little more than a dissing contest anywhere else. Out here even the extreme minority opinion, such as the viability of the Ford Focus, can be openly defended.
Jalopnik is fine… but they still have a very difficult problem with providing any real in-depth discussion amongst the group. Some writer dedicates a paragraph to a subject. Posters typically write three to four sentences. Finally, the discussion either becomes a name-calling game or just simply runs out of steam.
Out here, people have stories to tell. They have insights and experiences that go well beyond the yea or nay of liking a product. That’s what interests me. If I have a choice between talking to someone who bought a new Lexii, Acurae or Infinitii, and talking to someone about a car they’ve kept for 15 years, I’ll pick the fellow who kept his car for 15 years. That man really does have a story to tell.
The point is…. I really only post here because some day I want to meet the living legend, Paul Niedermeyer. I also want to get the chance to summarily spank Sajeev’s and Jonny’s sorry little behinds on the track and show that old Ford’s really do suck on the trac. Unfortunately parenthood and my own lack of free time keeps me from producing the first incarnation of “Grandpa’s Pissed!”. A Buick Roadmaster station wagon, with it’s rear cut off and a tennis machine installed in the back so that I can gleefully pelt those no good little whippersnappers all over the track. Hell I’ll even toss out some peckerwood golf clubs at their overheating 302’s when no one’s looking.
You’ve been warned boys. 2008 may be yours but come 2009, it’s all out bleeping war… and… well… what were we saying about civil discussions?
I certainly agree with the idea that TTAC detractors exercise selective memory. TTAC takes an acerbic look at cars from all the corners of our flat world. In the US I think the fate of the big three is the top story and justifies more coverage. I wince myself at some of the barbs I see in editorials here, but I’m a big boy and I can take it. In addition, if they were not thought provoking I would have packed it up at this site a year ago.
There’s a reason the casual observer believes TTAC has an anti-domestic bias. Just like there’s a reason the casual observer believes the quality of domestic vehicles is below the quality of imported vehicles.
Maybe what RF should do is post editorials on the good things Domestic automakers are doing. I mean, there has to something out there they’re doing right, right guys? Hello? This thing on?
It’s worth a shot.
Whatever you think about the positions or biases of the editorialists here, their arguments are based in fact, or well-founded logic. It seems that less is not tolerated. Good. And, mistakes are corrected. That’s all thats necessary. Follow Hank the Deuce: “Never complain, never explain”. I think my biggest complaint would be the dismissive nature of the judgements on complex issues.
One example from tonights podcast is RF and JB chuckling over the “dumb” decision of GM doing an investment in Fiat. The outcome certainly was bad, and apparently the negotiating team was asleep at the wheel, or desperate to make a deal when they signed of on the “put”. But there were sound business reasons to do that deal at the time, GM wouldn’t have a decent diesel to its name today without it.
I suppose that’s caused by the short attention span of bloggers and blog readers, and the “short form” format used by TTAC (in response?)
The commentators under the editorials…that’s another story. Although RF keeps the “your ugly and your mother dresses you funny” gambit out of the discourse, IMO, 80-90% of the comments do not interest me or add to my knowledge of the subject at hand. So, in general, I ignore them, or, when I have some extra time (like now, sitting in a hotel room) will scan the comments from some of the more interesting news items and editorials (like this one).
Finally, based on my collective experience (not just here), in general, with a few exceptions, internet commentators have an inflated view of their audience and their influence. The communications and PR folks at the car companies keep an eye on them, probably because they can’t be controlled, but senior management could care less (if they did, TTAC and others would have a seat at the table with JD Powers and Consumer Reports).
RF,
Phil Ressler had a good analysis above of choices you can make in how you present yourself. And many others have had incisive comments, leaving me little to add.
I am always impressed though with the civility of the site. It could be better–see my comment somewhere yesterday (wed) about how it would be good if people addressed issues instead labeling others as know-nothing (insert area on political spectrum). I have many excellent conservations with people of all political stripes, and I find this very interesting not only for the discussions about cars, but as an exercise in human relations. I have vivid memories of threads from before the flaming ban that degenerated into mud-slinging. What good is that? We learn a lot from each other when we can converse civilly. One of these days, I will tell my friend who writes the Miss Conduct column in the Globe about this, as an interesting example. (I don’t suppose you read the advice columnists–I’ve read all the big ones, avidly, for years, and she’s the best.)
As for you, I certainly think your critiques are fair, and useful, if only the relevant people would really listen. I have great respect for the fact that you invite them to have their say, unedited. (Have you informed them that the “no flaming” rule will apply in their defense? Maybe that would help encourage them on.) I think it’s highly commendable that TTAC is a marketplace of ideas.
It could conceivably be of some value to tone down the snarkiness. Rename the death watches “ICU watch” or something like that. But you have to ask what do we get and what do we lose for it? I don’t know.
But I don’ tthink therre’s any reason to tone down the critiques. Now that I think about it though, it might be useful to try to make it even more obvious that flaming is not permitted, and that that serves as a defense to anyone who comes on the site. In other words, to say prominently that if you don’t like what’s said in the editorials, feel free to rebut them in posts, knowing that we won’t allow anyone to flame you if you do (although they can critique your analysis to their heart’s content).
I just read Pola(backwards R)’s comment on Jalopnik. One bit that really hit home was this:
“I am a deeply patriotic American who would like nothing better than to see American automakers set the world to rights.
– I am a self centred, donkey sucking, cock master.”
According to Canadians, that ‘translation’ applies equally to pretty much every American. Aside from the intelligent Americans on this site. Just sayin’
There are only two changes I’d like to see. First, less hyperbole on everyone’s part. Second, stricter enforcement of the anti-flaming policy. Anonymity shouldn’t be used as license to post nasty slurs about persons, organizations or objects.
The civility is the thing. I’ve helped run other (completely unrelated) forums for close on ten years now and found that maintaining a civil tone is one of the most important elements of success. Sometimes maintaining civility requires an iron fist. Hey, it’s Farago’s house – it is not ours to wreck the furniture. (Still working on a quantitative approach to the star system, RF…maybe I’ll have something for you in a couple months.)
I hardly ever agree with everything in an editorial and sometimes I have serious disagreements with them. And yeah, sometimes the Death Watches get repetitive. (Of course, there might be a reason for that.) Regardless, I come here because I get new and different perspectives in a civil atmosphere that helps me arrive at my own version of The Truth About Cars. And I reckon that’s what it’s all about.
I’ve read comments on quite possibly hundreds, maybe thousands of sites, and there are very few that have the same level of mutual respect as this site. Usually, the line of distinction comes at the enforcement of rules as many commentators with experience running open forums have said. It’s hard for me to favor completely open communication when I accidentally scroll down to the comments at ESPN.com, Autoblog.com, or CNN.com. You have to remember that this country would rather use the First Amendment to say “FUCK YOU” in public, than it would to actually question the elected government.
I wouldn’t change anything about this site, mainly because I get perspectives, opinions, and experiences I don’t get anywhere else. Sure, there is an over-arching tone of “The Big 3 Are Screwed.com” but…I was convinced of that BEFORE finding this site. Watching my (very pro-Big 3) family suffer financially while I was growing up, due to the third rate quality of their domestic automobiles, and eventually turn to Asian imports, was a painful experience, even as a kid.
And Mikey, what does Bob Lutz’s personal life have to do with anything that has been chronicled on this site? And what news articles or editorials have been “anti-domestic”? Tonally, maybe, but come on…what information points to ANY of the Big 3 doing anything to reverse their current courses? Mulally’s hiring is just about the only thing I can point to and say “Wow, they did something that will help their future.” Reporting negative news, mismanagement, and supplier troubles isn’t bias. A heaping helping of skepticism is on my plate from what I mentioned above, and it seems that my generation has had a heaping helping as well, and the sales figures are indicating that.
Also, is TTAC anti-EV since there’s a Tesla Birth Watch? Haven’t heard anyone jump to THEIR defense.
I read the comments on the Jalopnik site and I nearly laughed my head off! Though, I must confess I think I laughed a little TOO hard at the “Farago is a self righteous prick” comment! Sorry….!
But then the comments took a really nasty turn. Commentators just went on a total character assassination on Mr Farago. Even when Mr Farago posted a defence, it still wasn’t good enough. Only one commentator prasied Mr Farago’s bravery. Everyone else scorned it. Then the offensive pictures came out and it all got a bit juvenile after that.
On TTAC, even when that dude from Saturn (The car maker, not an alien) posted on TTAC, we all thanked him for having the balls to step up. None of us, sniped him for it.
My point is this, after reading the comments on Jalopnik, maybe we NEED TTAC’s policy of anti-flaming? I know for a fact, that if half of those comments were directed at me, I would be personally hurt and upset by them. In fact, I remember on TTAC someone (I can’t remember who) really went after me because I dared to criticise Mark Fields (I’ll repeat that in case you thought that was a mistake “I remember on TTAC someone (I can’t remember who) really went after me because I dared to criticise Mark Fields”!). This commentator, went for the jugular!
So, in essence, the anti-flaming policy does more good than harm……and I’ll remember not to slag off Mark Fields!
Sometimes the content of your site is plagged with missinformed and opinionated BS… that’s what I dislike.
I like it to be critic and show the “obscure” part of the auto ind.
You should also show some of the REAL good things done by automakers more freq.
My .02
Also, is TTAC anti-EV since there’s a Tesla Birth Watch? Haven’t heard anyone jump to THEIR defense.
The name ‘Birth Watch’ signals optimism that Tesla can get their act together, even if that optimism is rooted in sarcasm. There is no such optimism (not even the sarcastic kind) found here with Death- and Suicide Watch articles.
You should also show some of the REAL good things done by automakers more freq.
If I may offer a rebuttal to this – NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
If you want bias, that’s bias. Sorry, but there are very few “good things” to talk about, so focusing on them would be no better than spin doctoring.
This desire to be nice about not very nice things just elevates the mediocre to the spectacular, and makes things seem better than they are, which would be far from honest. For those who want happy talk, there are plenty of websites that reprint press releases and the public relation’s office view of the world. There are plenty of places to get upbeat stories, you just have to chuckle as you read half of them.
I saw the original post but never read the comments, wow! There are several times I disagree with RF or other’s here and that’s fine you just don’t post like an asshat and it all stays. It’s just a common decency policy really. Guess that’s what happens with the anonymity of the internet IRL you call someone a douche and you get a pop in the mouth.
The only thing I thing TTAC should change are the deathwatch, lifewatch, suicide watch etc titles. For people who have been here a while it’s understood what they are and what it all means. For new viewers it seems like they have landed on an anti-domestic car site and probably leave after a few minutes never to return.
Run the site as you will, that’s your prerogative as the creator and owner but at some point you need to ask yourself. Do I want the site to be a professional, passionate, and un-biased (not saying it is just saying it can appear that way) or do you want it to be the equivalent of a shock jock/talk radio like Stern or Rush?
You can be passionate about cars and not be snarky. Saying the interior of a dodge is a piece of shit and you have seen better in a coffin when you do a review (not that you have in so many words, I didn’t search first) is what a teenager or frat boy would say. Not someone who wants to be taken seriously as an automotive journalist. Saying the interior is several levels below its competitors in fit, quality and finish is. Just take your common decency policy for comments and apply them to your reviews and editorials. I think some already do. I can’t remember a piece by Frank or William that didn’t appear well thought out and professional.
I have been following this site for close to a year now and at first found the site to be incredibly biased against the domestic manufacturers. As the months passed I grew to enjoy the entertainment value of the editorials, reviews and news items. This is not where I come to get my facts, this is where I come to pass a few minutes during the work day. Does TTAC take itself a little too seriously? Is Farago a little self righteous? Yes, and probably. We are talking about cars after all.
The authors here seem to pursue many news items with the tenacity of a local television news reporter whose attempts to win an Emmy for investigative journalism has them combing the streets of a sleepy town to determine who is responsible for vandalizing Grandma Smith’s front yard Santa display on the night before Christmas. I suppose that is a long way of saying that TTAC attempts to sensationalize too often at the expense of the “Truth”. Attempting to make an automotive blog into fine literature also goes overboard at times.
I do get the sense that there is disappointment that none of the big three have gone belly up as of yet. After it is all said and done though, I do believe this site and Farago, add content to the general automotive discussion. I have to say though, that an opportunity comes to throw a few questions at Bob Lutz and he is asked if his pension is bankruptcy proof. To me that shows that the “Truth” takes a back seat to rocking the boat and the Jalopnik comments about “truthiness” at TTAC have some merit.
Lastly, I do find it somewhat of an oddity that a site proclaiming to espouse the “Truth” about cars happens also to be the automotive related site with the most opinion riddled articles on the net. I do enjoy it though. Thanks
This has been a fascinating discussion. I have a love/hate relationship with RFs opinions. On the one hand I recognize that all the warts need to be exposed, it’s healthy in the long run. On the other hand, I find that the process thereof can be very wearing at times. And that leads me to consider RFs question in a different light. What makes us react to reporting of negative information? Is is that the truth hurts? If that were the only reaction, I seriously wonder why even the most emotionally stable of us could stand it for long. There is certainly a component of amusement and even glee. None of us are saints. We enjoy seeing others who have screwed up get skewered.
I have often been tempted to write a post in which I would vent my frustration over the seemingly constant flow of bad news. But two things stop me every time. First, there’s the site policy. That’s fine, it’s RF’s site and he can set whatever policy he likes. I respect that. The second is that there’s always this doubt that he might, just might, be more right than I am at any given moment.
One final point: Even the most mediocre product from one of the big 2.8 is light years ahead of almost anything that was available just a couple of decades ago. Yet if we take our discussions out of context, it would appear that this is not the case. Sometimes I think we need a little perspective.
On the Death Watch: Its a self fufilling prophecy. I can wake up every morning and say the world will end today. Eventually I’ll be right. And with the regularity RF writes them, just about everyone I know who knows about this site agrees, its anti-Domestic company bias, and RF rejoices over the downfall. I can’t say I disagree with them.
On RF’s question Bob Lutz: It was a dick move, plain and simple. You claim your here to just tell the truth about cars? Then get to it. Instead of going after Lutz’s retirement plan and ask him about cars. Or are you affraid he’d convince you that the G8 is a good ride?
On this site: Any website that calls itself “The Truth About…” just reaks of self rightous pretentious douchebagery. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a site so full of self proclaimed “piston heads” who argue more over what gets better fuel economy and who makes the quieter appliancemobile. When JL asked an great question about how much stupid money you spend on your car, it turned into a math lesson over depriciation and daily fuel costs and who manages to spend less.
On Jalop: Jalop is fun, its easy going, and they don’t take themselves seriously over there. Its just a good time where people get together to shoot the shit and talk cars and hoonage, and thats it. Just because you don’t have the skin to deal with what they say over there, and have to come back to the “yes men” sitting around here to nurse your bruised ego does not make it a bad site. I think this site would be light years better if POLAR (or whatever he is going by this hour) posted over here.
On this podcast: I will qoute Jalop lowmiles-
“Roger and Me,” despite its own obvious self-aggrandizing nature, at least had something to say. This clip that Farago is so proud of essentially says, “Bob Lutz is a dick,” which everyone already knows anyway.
quasimondo :
March 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
There’s a reason the casual observer believes TTAC has an anti-domestic bias. Just like there’s a reason the casual observer believes the quality of domestic vehicles is below the quality of imported vehicles.
Well not to flame, but I’m just a Modo. IMHO I have loved all my vehicles, mostly domestic, but as I stated earlier, my Xb kicks the butt of every domestic I have ever owned. And it’s FUN. My Toyota dealer is profesional and friendly, and thats more than I can say for the domestic dealers that I had to deal with over the years. I truly wish the American auto companies would get their sh:t together though, cause I would really love to buy American.
I’d like to give Phil Ressler 5 stars.
I’d also like to point out that he gave a polite, and valid, critique of the “tone” of posts and all anybody focused on was the fact that GM screws up more than the imports.
Yes, GM is in self-created trouble, but Phil’s point that the tone of articles about GM mistakes is more “vituperative” than articles about import mistakes is dead on.
GM may make more mistakes than Toyota, but that doesn’t excuse the difference in adjectives when discussing cheap plastic in a Cobalt versus cheap plastic in a Corolla.
I read TTAC every day I’m at work, and sometimes on the weekend, so I don’t think I’m a “casual observer”.
There is clearly a bias here. That bias isn’t indicated by the number of articles about domestic failings vs. import failings- it’s indicated by the language chosen to decribe fundamentally identical failings and the relative amounts of scorn heaped on various cars.
You can cherry pick specific reviews (I’m looking at you, Corolla) that make it appear that TTAC is unbiased, but when you read all the reviews a different picture emerges.
Ressler is right- decide how you want to be viewed and ignore anything that doesn’t matter to that goal.
I think MattInVA made a good point. Publishing corrections would actually be a good thing. I remember the one article you had on how v8s were the best engines and every engine should be a v8 really lost a lot of credibility for your site. That article should have been amended and clearly so. Other than that you guys do a great job. But I haven’t read a death watch in a long time, I just come here for the reviews.
I don’t think the names of the deathwatch series need to be changed because some people feel it is too negative. Each deathwatch is typically carried with new facts that GM or Ford have to publish since they are publicly traded companies.
There’s enough indication that both companies are in the same boat as the Titanic – sinking quickly. The question becomes can they be saved? The Malibu is a nice example of GM appearing to be paying attention to customers and genuinely trying to get a good car out there. The question becomes is that enough? From GM’s financial stand point, no. They need nearly every model to be that good or better.
Personally I don’t want to see either of them go under. Or Chrysler for that matter. But the truth of the matter is they are three companies in business to sell cars and trucks. As we all know business is about turning a profit. When was the last time any of the domestics turned a profit? When companies continually turn losses what happens?
As for bias, it may appear that way. Farago and company have ripped on BMW, Porsche, VW, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai recently. They are not as biased as you might think. The companies I just mentioned also aren’t losing money every quarter, nor are the in danger of going belly up soon as the domestic manufacturers are, so they don’t really deserve a death/suicide watch column yet. They could in the future, but at this point in time they are all profitable and staying in business.
Since Toyota and GM seem to be the one compared most lately as far as quality, let me be the first to state that Toyota takes the initiative to recall and fix their problems as soon as they can. GM, Ford, and Chrysler take years and lawsuits before they will fix some of their quality issues. A prime example is GM’s 3.4 V6. It has a known issue with the lower intake manifold gasket and has for years, but GM has never once recalled it. Same with Ford and the fire hazard a majority of their trucks posses up to the 2005 model year. How long did it take for them to finally fess up and recall those? Toyota realized there was a problem with the cam in their Tundra and recalled it ASAP. That is another example of why Toyota will succeed even with some initial quality issues and the big three will continue to flounder until they pick up the practice of correcting their mistakes in a timely manner.
As for Robert’s question to Bob Lutz, it wasn’t really the best question, but it does shed light on how he thinks. As a man in a leadership position for a large corporation he should have an idea about not only his financial standing all the time, but that of his employer too. If he thinks this way, does the rest of GM’s leadership do the same? It makes me wonder.
I don’t always agree with TTAC’s positions on things, but Mr. Farago allows me and everyone else to come here and discuss it civilly, and he responds maturely and civilly. For that he earns a lot of respect from me.
Maybe I’m projecting, but I think your criticism of GM, Ford, and Chrysler is founded in a desire for them to better represent this country, to be successful. While most people would probably accuse me of being a GM basher, my criticism for them comes from my sorrow at seeing how far they have fallen and a desire to see them rise again. I own a ’58 Chevy Fleetside and love it. I just wish GM would start building class leaders, like that truck, once again. Make me something that I can be proud of (other than the Corvette).
As far as the flaming policy, I wish more sites had the same policy you guys do. Ad hominem attcks are not discussion or debate; they are just what a person runs to when they don’t have anything to back up what they are saying and don’t want to admit that they either don’t know or are wrong.
There is clearly a bias here. That bias isn’t indicated by the number of articles about domestic failings vs. import failings- it’s indicated by the language chosen to decribe fundamentally identical failings and the relative amounts of scorn heaped on various cars.
But the failings aren’t equal.
The American auto industry could make substantial progress if they would first cop to the fact (at least internally) that they just don’t measure up and are second rate compared to the best competitors in the field.
This desire to claim that the A students should be treated like the D students is in itself a form of bias. The Big 2.8 are to get our tea and sympathy, a handicapped parking space and their own Special Olympics just because they are “American”? Thanks, but no thanks.
That being said, I will agree with some that it would be wise to tone the snarkiness just a tad, at least on occasion. Again, I know that it is really intended to serve as an ongoing homage to the likes of Hunter S. Thompson and Jeremy Clarkson, but not everyone understands or appreciates the intent.
Thanks for the feedback. Bring it on! I’ll interject myself here to answer three points… 1. I asked the question to Bob Lutz– “Is your pension bankruptcy” proof– because I believe it speaks to the heart of executive accountability. When I read that GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s pension was bankruptcy-proof, I was shocked. How could the CEO charged with turning around GM, a man asking union employees to take one for the team, possibly justify removing himself from the consequences of his own actions? After all, it’s not as if Mr. Wagoner is being paid, say, a dollar a year for his efforts. Surely Mr. Wagoner should face SOME measure of accountability, somewhere– even if it is symbolic. IF Bob Lutz pension is bankruptcy-proof, it would reveal that GM lacks faith in its own survival– on a wider scale than just one savvy CEO. And I want to know: are these guys planning to float away on their golden parachutes if the company goes tits up? As today’s Ford Death Watch states, there is nothing more important than corporate culture. And that culture starts with the guys at the top. My question was trying to find out if they are corrupt to the core. 2. As for “Death Watch” and “Suicide Watch” as series titles, it is what it says it is. A watch to see if any of the Big 2.8 are going to die or (in Chrysler’s case) deliberately kill themselves (i.e. file for Chapter 11). Yes, the title is deliberately provocative. These are important issues that deserve the automotive media’s full attention. It’s our way of putting a flag in the ground and saying we are NOT going to blithely accept the spinmongery coming from these companies. Millions of people’s livelihoods hang in the balance. Again, if and when any of the Big 2.8 are out of financial peril, the respective series will end. 3. As for the “glee” we take in reporting these events, it behooves those who accuse of anti-domestic bias to check our coverage of Toyota, Nissan, Kia and the rest of the transplants. Yes, it’s less frequent than our coverage of the Big 2.8. As PCH101 pointed-out, that’s because they don’t do as much stupid shit as the so-called domestics. But when they do, we’re there. (Not to mention our “call it like we see it” reviews.) But back to the tone, I make no apologies for our snarky, sarcastic style. As many of you suspect, we’re angry because we care. And it is not our job to share the good news the industry PR folk pump-out on an hourly basis. There are plenty of outlets happy to reprint press releases or accept the party line when it comes to “challenging” news. We’re here to rake muck. To say what the other guys won’t or can’t say. And, frankly, to keep both our readers and ourselves amused while doing so. Sad but true: being nice isn’t funny. And we do like to laugh. Can we laugh at ourselves? Or am I, the writers and commentators pompous, self-righteous pricks? Ultimately, that’s your call. Meanwhile, I urge those who think we’re arrogant to consider the fact that we take time to listen to the criticism, respond to it and, yes, change. Otherwise we’d be as guilty as those we condemn.
I’ll make my opinion quick. I don’t think RF and TTAC have a strong bias against Detroit. I do think that the ruthless way in which the content is presented here does attract an audience who IS biased against Detroit for whatever laundry list of reasons. I am sometimes irritated with the way that the Detroit bashers are allowed to run their fingers freely and make snarky comments like, “This is the only way I would ever buy a ford. I would show them a virtual picture of my money …” Is that really necessary?
Overall the skeptical tone of the content is what makes this site far more interesting than any other automotive news/editorial website.
As for “Death Watch” and “Suicide Watch” as series titles, it is what it says it is. A watch to see if any of the Big 2.8 are going to die or (in Chrysler’s case) deliberately kill themselves (i.e. file for Chapter 11). Yes, the title is deliberately provocative. These are important issues that deserve the automotive media’s full attention. It’s our way of putting a flag in the ground and saying we are NOT going to blithely accept the spinmongery coming from these companies. Millions of people’s livelihoods hang in the balance. Again, if and when any of the Big 2.8 are out of financial peril, the respective series will end.
You should have a permalink to such an explanation available for your various “Watch” series. The regulars get it, but the less sophisticated among the non-regulars clearly don’t. Then again, maybe that intellectual barrier to entry keeps such folk over on Jalopnik posting pictures of feminine hygiene products for grins.
On second thought, forget I said anything, you rabid Detroit hater, you.
LOL, now that a lot of us have been accused of being “yes men” (what, no women read this site?) in a previous post can we get a free hat or something Robert? Oh, btw, “yes”.
Ha, PCH and I agree again.
My over all feeling on this thing is that anyone who would choose the kind of discourse on Jalopnik over that on TTAC because of bias isn’t thinking very hard. The stories on the site itself are often interesting, but there can be no useful discussion there.
People who believe that bias is like an accent (it’s something other people have), and people who think having a strong opinion is a clear sign of bias, are the worst sort of idiots we have. The former survive only if someone else manages to stop them from running off a cliff, while the latter live like parasites. Both have contempt for those whose talents and efforts are responsible for their very survival.
In the parlance of Jalopnik – they are a bunch of worthless gits.
I have been reading this site for about 6 months now and I don’t think there is a bias against domestics. I think its a simple fact that domestic quality is far below their Japanese and German counterparts.
Pontiac recalls cars because they catch on fire. My first vehicle, a 1990 aerostar, had to have the engine replaced at 120,000 kilometers. The 2005 Focus I had almost killed me. At high altitudes the brake bootser loses vacuum when parked and idle for a couple of hours. The warmer the weather, the worse it is. I had to use two feet to stop the car during the first 2 minutes of driving. I had it in 9 times to be fixed and it never was (despite ford issuing a service bulletin for the problem…yeah a bulletin, not a recall) and I got in an accident as a result. Ford refused to accept responsibility and would only let me out of my lease if I signed into a lease for a 2006 Focus, and tried to force me take a car with chipped paint on top of all that. The brake issue is still present in the 2006 model…to be safe I pump the brake before I start to car so it builds up proper vacuum right away.
I will never, ever buy a domestic again. An A4 is likely my next car. Are there reliability issues with Audi or VW? Sure. The radio might flake out or the door remote might stop working…but the car will never put your life at risk by catching on fire or brake failure.
I say, criticize away and be as snarly as you like TTAC. The domestics deserve nothing less.
It’s rather entertaining to read the back-and-forth banter:
GM is improving vs. GM is declining;
GM is making better cars vs. Too few, too late;
GM management is doing a great job vs. GM management are a bunch of unaccountable parasites.
And I wonder, how many of the commentators KNOW first-hand, if their beliefs and opinions are true?
How many commentators have been in the RenCen, met any members of the GM executive team, and dealt with them and have known them?
I have.
Some are arrogant, over-promoted, self-important suits who wouldn’t know a great idea if it showed up in their Brooks Brothers pocket.
Others are self-effacing, generous, earnest, thoughtful people who look both within and outside themselves and the organization for help and direction.
You’ll find bigwigs blathering about big ideas, taking risks, leading the charge — and then once presented with making a go-forward decision about a big idea or taking a risk, you’ll find them cowering in a bathroom stall. Stalling. Waiting for someone else to make their decision for them. Posers exposed.
Beneath them are countless minions in every corner, charged with infinitesimally small, trite tasks, whose only purpose is obstruction and unnecessary interjection — if only as a means of self-preservation and job justification.
But there are still many at GM who still believe. Who know that this huge, dysfunctional organization has the ability to fix itself, to show the world again how good American technology and innovation can be.
So what do I think?
About GM?
About its mere survival?
Or, dare I say, success?
When you add the naysayers to the cheerleaders, you about have GM figured out.
Cuz it’s just like the completely screwed up organization all of us work for (or have worked for, at one time or another).
Only GM is bigger. And probably more public.
Very few companies have synergy from management on down, throughout all functions and systems…and those that do will eventually lose it as they grow.
GM as an organization is epic in its size and complexity. Like an entire country. Its own civilization, even. In its good years, it became bloated, over-complicated, over-layered, and it eventually became an impossible place for ground-breakers and independent-thinkers to thrive. Visionaries like Earl, Mitchell and Duntov need no longer apply. Go-along, to get-along became the company mantra. And why not? When things were good, who cared? What’s to fix?
And now that bloated labyrinth of systems and procedures and gate-keepers and divisions and managers has fallen on bad times — a natural consequence of previous excess. And success.
GM, the civilization, has so much standing in the way of brave decisions and outstanding product, the mind boggles.
The enemy, then, is not the Germans or the Japanese. It’s GM itself.
I’ve been in the automotive marketing industry twenty years. GM is by far the most frustrating and rewarding of all accounts I’ve ever worked on.
It’s been responsible for both the best and the worst leadership and decisions I’ve witnessed.
Some of the greatest minds, and the absolute worst, reside inside.
I cheer for them. And curse them.
So will they make it? Will it survive?
Maybe if one reads through all of TTAC’s (Farrago’s) opinions, you’ll arrive at his overarching premise….
It’ll survive. Just be very, very different.
And I agree.
GM is already waging that battle for change inside itself. It’s painful. It’s slow. And there’s going to be a lot more pain before it’s all done. Sooner, rather than later.
So take up your positions, positive or negative. Either position is sound and can even be factually supported.
But in the end, something leaner, more streamlined, will emerge. The bloat will be cut – there will be no other financial choice. The posers and politicians inside the RenCen will be exposed. Some may even float off in golden parachutes. Unfortunately, it’s the corporate, American way.
Haters will be justified.
Cheerleaders will celebrate.
Both confident their positions were correct all along.
Mr. Farago,
First let me say that this site is a must-read for me nearly every day…if away from home, I still check out this site whenever possible. The articles and reviews, not to mention the insights provided by fellow readers, are entertaining and informative.
Regarding the anti-domestic bias – it’s true that the domestics (to varying degrees) are the ones making the biggest mistakes. And it’s just natural to focus on the hometeam. A Chrysler decision to file for bankruptcy or discontinue vehicle production means more to Americans than similar decisions by Mitsubishi.
There does, however need to be some perspective in the criticism. For example, Bob Lutz does make outrageous statements and, like too many of his fellow executive suite members at GM, still thinks that the car-buying public is just itching to abandon their Toyotas, BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes for the all-new, next-big-thing from GM.
BUT – let’s be fair and note that Mr. Lutz HAS made improvements in GM’s vehicle development processes. The new cars are trucks ARE much better. Whether they are better enough to get satisfied customers out of their current ride is certainly a worthy topic of discussion.
Mr. Lutz was brought in to tear down the self-imposed barriers that hobbled GM’s efforts to develop more competitive products, and, based on the improvements to the newest products, it does appear to be working. Take him to task for too many off-the-cuff statements, or failure to sort out GM’s brands, but at least give him credit where it is due.
With Chrysler, it needs to be remembered that DAIMLER owned the company from 1998-2007, and had installed its management team there, and therefore bears responsibilities for such abortions as the Sebring/Avenger and Compass and Chrysler’s lackluster quality. Daimler was calling the shots, and basically ran the company into the ground during its ownership. Shouldn’t Daimler be held accountable? Has there been an article noting that the pride of the German auto industry tried to crack the American mass market by buying an established company, and failed miserably? And that the blame for this failure rests largely in Germany, not Auburn Hills?
As for Ford – the recent editorial describing Mr. Laymon’s remarks, and Ford’s treacherous culture, could have described every place I’ve ever worked (and I’ve worked in both government and the private sector). It wasn’t terribly illuminating on Ford’s current condition, or regarding much progress Mr. Mulally is making in his effort to save the company.
Pch101 :
March 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
But the failings aren’t equal.
Mitsubishi makes horrible cars with very bad reliability ratings. Their sales are in the tank and I dare you to name a Mitsubishi you would drive.
The last review of a Mitsubishi by TTAC was nine months ago. Nine. The last I checked they still sell cars here, and TTAC routinely criticizes GM models older than that.
Mitsubishi may not make as many product mistakes as GM, but the ones they do make are every bit as deserving of scorn as GM, or Ford, or Chrysler. Where’s the outrage, the commentary about how you wouldn’t touch a base lancer with a 10′ pole?
This site, and it’s commenter’s, flame domestic manufacturers every day. But.. a company that built a car that TTAC described as dangerous to drive and that hasn’t improved since that review comes in for almost zero scrutiny. When it is mentioned here the choice of language- with a few obvious exceptions- is no where near as caustic as it is when a domestic makes a cheap, oddly styled, poorly selling rat trap.
It should be enlightening that the only people denying that bias exists are the creator and the regular contributors. Everybody without a vested interest in the site claims a bias exists.
Whether you are comfortable admitting it or not, TTAC has a bias. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but denying it is both pointless and futile. Accept that it’s there, accept that it’s part of the culture, and move on.
Mj0lnir, you should have added my next sentence to provide some context to my statement:
The American auto industry could make substantial progress if they would first cop to the fact (at least internally) that they just don’t measure up and are second rate compared to the best competitors in the field.
Nobody, but nobody, is upholding Mitsubishi as a noteworthy or best competitor. In the US car market, it is a non-entity.
Mitsubishi just doesn’t do much that’s worth talking about. It’s a bit like saying that if we are going to criticize the business mistakes of McDonald’s that we should devote equal time to critiquing Bob’s Burger Stand and Auto Repair.
I know that you are a domestic fan. Let’s face it — you just don’t like the domestics being criticized, or the idea that Toyota, Honda or BMW are better managed companies that do a better job of identifying or serving their customers.
Again, in the business world, everybody understands this as fact. Nobody, but nobody, with any expertise or knowledge believes that GM offers the most effective business models, while everyone finds much to criticize.
You don’t see it, but Mr. Farago is doing you a favor. I don’t agree with everything he believes (not that I have to, it’s a free country), but much of what you find in the Deathwatch columns is a summary of what any business consultant would tell you about what ails the company.
All of this information that shocks the gearheads and angers the domestic fanboys is already commonly accepted as Automotive 101 by businesspeople who understand these industries. To someone with business knowledge, the mistakes are really, painfully obvious.
So stop shooting the messenger. You can read Bob Lutz’s blog if you want some fantasy version of the auto biz, but the happy chatter over there won’t sell any cars.
The employees and shareholders deserve to see these companies return to profitability, and there doesn’t seem to be much of a plan to get there, which saddens me as a car guy and pisses me off as a business person. If you want the Death Watch columns to stop and get the last laugh on Mr. Farago, then it might help if you could GM to hire a new CEO.
Evo!
Since this is an open discussion and I forgot to mention it in my first post, here it is => Please add my vote to those that have asked for a better star rating system in your reviews.
On the star system:
I think a star system w/10 being the max is desperately needed. Actually, make that a must as I feel the site’s integrity is at stake if one carefully peruses the reviews, then the awarded stars. There should be consistency in awarding stars from one reviewer to the next. Like many here, I cannot fathom how the Altima Coupé received 5/5 stars… At least one point should be devoted to styling, something that the automobile in question lacks just like the Caliber lacks soft plastics. Yes, styling is subjective, but in my eyes generic styling is worse than Asstech styling.
PS: Please keep the tone and comments. It reminds me of Clarkson, but it applies to cars we get here in NA. And that, is a good thing!
Domestic Hearse: I’d love to hear more. You have a way with words, as they say. If you put some working behind it, i’d love to see an editorial from you.
MjOlner,
I have no vested interest in this site, and I note several others here that don’t either who agree with me that there is no real anti-domestic bias here. Sorry, that means you are incorrect.
Pch101 :
March 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Do me a favor. Go read Niedermeyer’s news blurb about CGI developments in design and advertisement and then explain why the last two sentences do not indicate an editorial bias.
Given three choices- report the news, report the news and mock an ugly domestic vehicle, or report the news and mock an ugly import- a TTAC editor/writer chose to mock an ugly domestic.
Surprise, surprise.
Most people assume that when you go out of your way to make fun of something, it indicates a bias. I would characterize a snide comment in what appears to be a factual reporting of events as “going out of your way”.
Like I said- it’s not necessarily bad, but quit pretending it doesn’t exist.
Mj0lnir :
Do me a favor. Go read Niedermeyer’s news blurb about CGI developments in design and advertisement and then explain why the last two sentences do not indicate an editorial bias.
So using your logic, if he’d said, say, “bring the man an xB,” we would have a indicated an editorial bias against imports. ANY comment made for or against ANY car can be twisted to show a bias for or against something. If you can write a totally unbiased editorial or review of anything, we welcome your contribution.
And if you truly think TTAC is biased against imports, I encourage to look at the cold, hard facts.
Like I said- it’s not necessarily bad, but quit pretending it doesn’t exist
I guess that you didn’t also notice the potshots taken at Toyota’s donation to the Audobon Society or the pronouncements of Lexus’ failure in Japan. Very selective reading glasses.
Without snide remarks, it would not be a review at all. Why do you think actors hate critics? The snarky remarks are part of the art form. Only the most glowing reviews are without snideness, and they always have other forms of humor to replace it.
In fact, I would bet that hundreds, if not thousands, of auto reviews contain snide remarks that even the author did not agree with. He put them in the review because he wanted to show off his wit.
Frank Williams :
March 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am
And if you truly think TTAC is biased against imports, I encourage to look at the cold, hard facts.
You do realize that that post does nothing to address the tone of posts? Furthermore, it doesn’t begin to explain why an offhand comment that chooses to attack a domestic vehicle in a “news” item isn’t bias.
Frank Williams :
March 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am
If you can write a totally unbiased editorial or review of anything, we welcome your contribution.
Here’s where your logic, and the logic of some of your fellow posters, breaks down- the Niedermeyer post I referred to was neither an editorial nor a review. It was ostensibly a news item, and basic news doesn’t generally require an editorial interjection.
I wouldn’t begin to pretend I could write a bias-free editorial or review. I could, however, tell you that manufacturers are developing new technologies without mocking a product.
See the difference?
Choosing to mock a specific thing/person/company in a news item that requires nothing more than who/what/when/why is a sign of bias. Period.
If your local paper had a front page article about the new sanitation contract your city signed (simple reporting, right?), and at the end the reporter said something along the lines of “Maybe they could pay XYZ Garbage Co. to haul away the mayor”, you’d view that as an attack on the mayor.
It would be an appropriate comment in an op/ed piece about the mayor’s conduct, but it’s a clear sign of biased reporting in a “news” piece on the front page, and since it wasn’t about the city manager or district attorney it’s fair to assume that the writer (and the editor that allowed it to print) dislikes the mayor.
If you want to hold TTAC to a different standard, that’s okay, but stop pretending that the editors and many contributors aren’t biased.