Since it began, TTAC has called on all automotive publication to publish disclosure of all manufacturer-provided travel, lodging, food and gifts. The worst offenders: car sections of local newspapers. And no wonder; they remain one of the few profitable portions of many otherwise failing publications. To wit: Joe Clark's [Fawny Blog] take on the Toronto Star's Wheels section. Calling Wheels "a giant moneymaker" for the paper, Clark links to an editorial where the paper agrees that "accepting free travel to preview cars is not ethically or journalistically sound." So no car junkets, right? Wrong. The Star simply hires freelancers and "outsources unethical behaviour." A quote from freelancer Ted Laturnus in an article in the Ryerson Review Of Journalism says it all. "All I can say to the people who think we shouldn't be taking free trips is, 'Go fuck yourself. Come back to me when you've grown up.' They don't know the side of reality to this business. I do. I've been in it for 20 years. I have no patience for that sorta thing. It's the way the game is played." Note to Ted: we're here to change the rules.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Motor Matters uber alles, baby!!!
You might be able to find clips of Laturnus on Youtube, or a show he co-hosted with Tony Whitney, Driver’s seat, if they webcast. I haven’t seen or read anything he has done lately, but a few segments will permit you to judge for yourself.
“All I can say to the people who think we shouldn’t be taking free trips is, ‘Go fuck yourself. Come back to me when you’ve grown up”
Yeah just deal with the 5-10 years you’ll have to spend with that overpriced piece of crap car I told you to buy and quit yer bitchin!
Keep in mind that the Laturnus quote is at least six years old.
I’ve seen drivers seat. Two serious goobs trying hard to be cool and not even coming close. Their reviews are just lame.
In case Ted hasn’t been paying attention, newspaper circulation and revenues are in free fall. Online news organizations are taking readers away from you and eBay and Craigslist are eating your classified lunch. So why not make it a triple and alianate your car section readers by offering them advertorials instead of critical analysis? TTAC appreciates all the readers you send their way.
Are writers supposed to reject free travel and such? Or only divulge when they get it?
Even CR’s people hang out at the Firehouse during NAIAS, where Chrysler picks up the tab for everything.
Michael Karesh : Even CR’s people hang out at the Firehouse during NAIAS, where Chrysler picks up the tab for everything.
So did TTAC, even if nobody talked to us. (sad face)
The grandiosely self-titled Automotive Journalists Association of Canada (AJAC), aka the Fraternal Order of Automotive Junketeers, hosts an annual Car of the Year event paid for by the manufacturers.
Several years ago General Motors balked at paying thousands of dollars for the boys’ week-long booze-up and boycotted the proceedings. The reaction was predictable, and continued until the chastened manufacturers capitulated.
Newspapers should ponder the damage biased reporting wreaks on their credibility.
Publications do tend to write in favor of their advertisers as without them, there is no publication. Good or bad, that is how it is unless it’s fully subscriber funded. Keep in mind that even a magazine subscription may just cover the postage, not the creation or printing.
As far as taking perks and writing misleading or just false stories, that should be where the line is drawn, because instead of being a news source, their just a marketing source.
A little bit off-topic, but maybe of interest:
The only decent automotive TV show in Canada is “RPM” on French-speaking TQS. The host actually trashes cars when they’re bad, discusses why some cars are bad at certain things (shows you the minuscule rotors and brake pads and tells you why car X has long stopping distances; shows you the suspension and tells you why car Z’s ride is not well controlled. etc).
There’s another show Car/Business where the 2 hosts (Jeremy Cato and Michael Vaughan) answer a viewer’s request to help her/him decide what car to buy in X category for Z budget. Acceptable. But not by much.
I’ve always been amused by the fact that I used to think the much-admired (in some circles) Click and Clack of NPR were pretty good at answering call-in automotive questions off the cuff. Then a friend proposed a Saab question to them that was “accepted” for their radio show, and she was told to call back at such-and-such an hour on a date two months hence, and they would answer her question on the air.
After having had a staffer research it, of course. They themselves probably knew no more about her problem than they did about emergency procedures for hydraulic failure on a 747.
“Full disclosure: Honda gave everyone who attended the launch of the new Accord an iPod touch. Now, I don’t usually go to car launches because it means accepting business class flights, five star hotel accommodation, three star dinners and gifts such as these from car companies which always seems a little dodgy*, but this was one I could do in a day”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/on-the-road-honda-accord-816095.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/on-the-road-honda-accord-816095.html
But the press lady had pressed the box into my hands before I really understood what I was accepting.
If I had a nickel…
This is an interesting one. As an automotive journalist (cars.about.com), I too accept free trips to press launches. The junket makes sense from an economic standpoint; it’s the fastest way to get 50 to 100 journalists into a limited number of cars in a short period of time (as opposed to the usual one-on-one week-long press loans). The accommodations are usually very nice. Do they have to be? Well, it makes sense that the automakers want the journalists to be comfortable and in a good frame of mind. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be stuck in a $39.95/night Super 8, but I don’t need the Four Seasons; as long as it’s clean and comfortable, I’m happy. Gifts? Those are largely going away — I haven’t received anything more expensive than a model car in ages. (And as for flying business class… not for web guys, apparently; unless it’s international, they always fly me coach.)
So what about payback? Well, my view on it is that if an automaker takes me along on a junket, I do owe them a review — after all, they are investing money and looking for a return, which is publicity for their car. (One automaker told me that only 60% of writers they take on press launches will write an article. That seems ridiculous, and a bit ungrateful, to me.) However, I don’t owe them a *good* review. I owe them an *honest* review. Now, that said, I don’t often write bad reviews — not because I am trying to kiss the automakers’ corporate posteriors, but because I believe that all cars have good and bad points. My job is to inform my readers on what those are so they can make an educated decision on what to buy. *That* said, if I think a car is truly crap — or, as is more often the case, if I think my readers would be best served by completely avoiding it — then I will say so. (Great example: My Dodge Caliber SRT-4 review.) My bad reviews are as honest as my good reviews, and I’ve never had a complaint from any of the automakers.
As for disclosure: Currently, I do not put a disclosure statement at the end of the articles (though I will often mention in the article if I went on a manufacturer-sponsored trip). No particular reason, except that we have strict character counts, and that’s just more space taken out of the review.
No particular reason, except that we have strict character counts
I know how you feel.
I don’t think the majority of automotive reviews really add much value other than validating a purchase decision. Somebody doesn’t go about basing a decision because some middle-aged-white-guy thought the legroom was a bit substandard or the car understeered at 65mph. Rather, buyers use the dozens of reviews to find solace that they didn’t waste the commitment to pay twenty five thousand dollars.
Since car reviews are subjective, it doesn’t matter what fluff a writer puts in his piece. The writer’s responsibility is to actually have an audience that wants to read his work. They’re not obligated to produce a conclusion based on some scientific method. As long as we’ve had communication; we’ve had a motivation to pander to an audience. And similarly during that same time; we’ve had critics.
If an audience reads a review that they find untruthful or undesirable, then they stop reading it. I really hope car buyers do more diligence than reading the newspaper.
I’ve always been amused by the fact that I used to think the much-admired (in some circles) Click and Clack of NPR were pretty good at answering call-in automotive questions off the cuff. Then a friend proposed a Saab question to them that was “accepted” for their radio show, and she was told to call back at such-and-such an hour on a date two months hence, and they would answer her question on the air.
After having had a staffer research it, of course. They themselves probably knew no more about her problem than they did about emergency procedures for hydraulic failure on a 747.
Their garage, the Good News Garage, in Cambridge MA gets excellent reviews in Angie’s List, which is a service I belong to where customers can rate any local service, and check others’ ratings before using the service. (It’s all over the US)
nerd,
I think it should not be the author’s choice about disclosure. The publisher is the one who really has a conflict. They should be disclosing after your article unless they do not accept car ads.
You’ve just been flown on business class to the south of Spain, for the introduction of the Freelander. 60 of the little beasties have been prepared for the press, and journalists are to drive them between luxury hotels and some pretty good eateries for a number of days.
Everything is free. The drive is wonderful. The accommodation is sumptuous, the bar is doing a good imitation of trying to bail out a sinking boat, they’re shifting liquids that fast.
You’re back on board the plane, and you’re beginning to formulate your impression of the Freelander.
Let’s see now, how should I put this, and not risk being disinvited from the next junket.
(BTW – this is how the Freelander was introduced to the European press. But there was nothing extraordinary about that junket – this is how it goes down.)
Since the mid-1970s, I’ve been on so many international car-intro junkets that I’ve more than lost count. I used to know everybody else on the junket; today I don’t know anybody, since my guys are all dead or retired.
When people find out what I do for a living, particularly car guys, they invariably say, “You’ve got the best job in the world. Can I carry your bags just so I can go along?” I’ve stopped responding, “Carry my bags? You can go _for_ me, do me the favor of letting me stay home.” They don’t believe me.
Experienced automotive writers do _not_ enjoy junkets. (There, see? You don’t believe me either.) When you’ve been to the south of Spain 15 times, when a small two-lane in Bavaria suddenly looks familiar and you realize you’ve been on it before, when you find yourself in the very same hotel room in Stockholm that you were in five years ago, it begins to get old.
And I don’t know about European journalists, Stein, but it is absolutely typical on a trip involving U. S. car writers that of the 15 of us on a trip, the one or two known drunks will be at the bar after dinner, but everybody else is sound asleep as fast as they can be. (I, by the way, have never been on a long-lead junket that involved 60 press cars. Six, maybe, for the 12 of us. I don’t think there are 60 car journos in the U. S. that a car company will fly business class anywhere. No wonder Land Rover is in trouble…)
Anyway, it’s like being a firefighter or an airline pilot: the rest of the world thinks it’s the most exciting job in the world, we who actually do it know that it’s relatively boring and hard work.
Okay, you’ll never believe me, and nobody who hasn’t been required to spend 30 hours and four airline transfers with eight hours of layover time getting from Upstate New York to Morocco in order to drive yet another goddamn Porsche will possibly accept the fact that junkets are a pain in the ass.
I have turned down probably eight international junkets in the last three months, plus two manufacturer invitations to the Pebble Beach Concours week in August. Been there. Done that. Got the teeshirt. And please don’t tell me I have the best job in the world. _You_ do it.
Stephan Wilkinson :
Never mind the jealousy factor. Anyone who’s ever had to travel through airports on a regular basis knows how wearing that becomes. And anyone who’s been herded like a sheep through a full-day of corporate PR knows how exciting that can be.
The question here is ethics. TTAC accepts press junkets, when offered (please forward those invitations in our directions). Whether or not we are influenced by the manufacturers’ largesse is an open question. Literally. By acknowledging the sponsor’s FULL contribution (unlike Edmunds), we let readers know it’s time to switch on their collective BS detector.
Once again, I’ll remind my colleagues that a new car may be fun and games to you. But it’s an enormous financial investment to the average reader. Sins of commission, sins of omission, doesn’t matter. The readers deserve the truth.
Pat Bedard was quoted in the Wall Street Journal probably 20 years ago–which is how long this argument about junkets has been going on–as saying something like it would take more than an airline ticket and some Scotch to compromise his standards. I’m sure there are writers who do get compromised, but we don’t bother to read them. Jim Kenzie or whatever his name is, of the Toronto paper referenced at the beginning of this post? I see him on junkets all the time, never read a word he’s written, never will.
My friend Dan Neil goes on plenty of junkets, I see him frequently, yet he’s just as honest as any writer for ttac, though he uses fewer obscenities and coarse anatomical references. Won him what he refers to as “the Pullet Surprise.”
“though he uses fewer obscenities and coarse anatomical references.”: I’m glad SW wrote that. I agree with the implication.
“coarse anatomical references”
But, as Freud once pointed out, “Sometimes, a ‘flying vagina’ is just a ‘flying vagina’…”
Stephan Wilkinson: My friend Dan Neil goes on plenty of junkets, I see him frequently, yet he’s just as honest as any writer for ttac… Surely you remember the kerfuffle over Dan’s call for GM’s management team to take a powder? GM pulled ALL of its advertising from the LA Times. ALL OF IT. They eventually kissed and made up, and I have nothing but respect for Dan's work, but the point was made. More to the point, the vast majority of automotive junketeers are constantly pulling their punches. I can provide hundreds of examples. Whether they do so because of advertiser pressure or a desire to keep their noses in the trough, is a moot point. They won’t/can’t tell the truth about cars.
I’m not an auto journalist, but I am a journalist and I have accepted stuff…drinks, meals, paid admission to events and things I’ve covered.
Writers just have to have a certain amount of ice water in their veins and realize that companies are, in fact, trying to influence them.
It’s not your job to be their friend. Companies, sources, etc. should feel two things when you show up: fear and respect.
In news writing that comes from doing your damnedest to always be fair and accurate. All you then have to do is master how to handle the phone calls from very angry sources. If you’ve been fair and accurate, they’ll come around.
I think it’s a bit different for auto journalists because reviewing cars is such a subjective game. The facts only take you so far. But think of it this way: Car companies aren’t inviting you on a trip to test their car because they think it’s great, they are taking a calculated risk in order to get publicity. You owe them nothing. And the information you get can be used any time, not necessarily in a direct review of the car.
-Matt
Yes, the point was indeed made, the point being, “Our writer writes what he wants. You can pull your advertising, but it won’t change that.”
Didn’t change us at Car and Driver either–at least not in those days–when GM pulled all its advertising after the famous Opel-in-the-junkyard photo.
I know that you want to feel this is the sole automotive site on the planet that tells the truth about cars, but that isn’t necessarily true. In fact, I feel that one of ttac’s problems is that you so desperately want to tell “the truth” that some of your writers all too easily convert an engine hum to a deafening roar that blots out all in-car conversation, a slightly notchy shifter becomes a baseball bat in a tub of hardening concrete, a barely perceptible turbo becomes a banshee’s shriek. The pendulum swings both ways.
Autonerd: As for disclosure: Currently, I do not put a disclosure statement at the end of the articles (though I will often mention in the article if I went on a manufacturer-sponsored trip). No particular reason, except that we have strict character counts, and that’s just more space taken out of the review.
You’re gonna have to explain this to me, why would one sentence at the bottom affect the “space” constraints of your review? What’s a few more characters and another line break or three between friends?
I’m asking because TTAC doesn’t count that one liner at the end of a review to the 800 words limit. The extra bandwidth is negligible, right?
WOW, There are articles about cars in the Wheels section of the Star? I don;t think I have ever noticed one in between the 20 pages of car ads. No wonder it is a money maker, the ad revenue from that section must be enormous.
In the days when print was the medium to disseminate information and opinions the auto journalists had a stronger influence to win hearts and minds.
With the advent of digital media, blogs, forums the print auto journalists have lost their powers of persuasion, although they still have the power of print media.
The informed consumer grasps that these folks “tow the line” and are “correct” in their opinions.
Do these folks have the same influence they had years ago? Or are they part of the emerging “automotive entertainement” which is rampant in the digital media.
Stephan Wilkinson wrote:
…_You_ do it.
OK. I will. Not a card carrying journo, but I’ve been told I can string a few words together pretty well. Will even come up with references if needed.
Just tell me where and when! :)
Great post.
First: I love to hear the reactions and comments from people not in the industry. You’re who we’re trying to serve and reach — not the car companies.
Second: I feel semantics-wise, this TTAC post unfairly implicates the Star and Ted Laturnus, where Laturnus isn’t a Star reporter…he’s simply a Canadian journalist who was also mentioned in the Ryerson article.
Both Jil McIntosh, a current Star writer and auto journo, and I, a former Star writer and auto journo at some car mags North of the border, have published our own reactions to the subject.
Hers: http://jilmcintosh.typepad.com/jil/2008/05/img-altimg_2515-classat-xid-6a00e55024978b883400e552524f5e8833-srchttpjilmcintoshtypepadcoma6a00e55024978b883400e552524f5e8833-320pi-st.html
Mine: http://banovsky.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/comment-ethics-and-auto-journalism/
In short, I think (in Canada, at least) AJAC should (as an organization) and journalists (individually) need to step up and change things. I’m not a member of that organization for that exact reason. Oh, and that most of their members are douches.
M!
Stephen:
Granted, auto journalism has its not-so-fun moments — but for goodness sake, we drive cars and write about cars and get paid for it. Nearly a decade elapsed between the time I graduated college and the time I was able to quit my day job and make my living as a full-time car writer. I’ve put in my fair share of time in Corporate America. I don’t care what anyone says –a day spent behind the wheel — or a day spent waiting at the airport for a delayed flight — beats a day spent in a cubicle, period. This *is* the best job in the world. If I ever I get to the point that the job is a drag, I’m going to retire — I know for a fact there are plenty of people lined up behind me who would love to do this job.
As for bias… there are a lot of readers who seem to assume that if you say anything nice about a car — especially a domestic car — you must be on the manufacturers payroll or under a gag order by the advertising staff. And if you tell them that isn’t true, they say “Of course you’re going to deny it.” What can you do? It comes with the territory.
Really enjoying the exchange between the Pros. It’s the first time I’ve had the chance to hear so many writers discuss this topic at once in one forum. Thank you all for your input!
A short paragraph at the beginning or end of a review stating how said review was made possible should be mandatory; but there is not where lies my beef.
My problem with the majority of “established” auto writers is that when perusing their work, it reads like a spec sheet from a brochure. They fail to provide the reader with more than just the specs. To be taken seriously they must call it how it is. If a vehicle is acceptable, decent, class-leading or best-in-class we hear the eulogies on and on. But these eulogies should only be saved for class-leading and best in class metal. Even then I would argue, there are things to improve – there are always things to improve.
Failing to acknowledge when a product is average (or worse) by not expanding on the weaknesses of such product is the same as lying to your readers, who, like a poster already said, might count on these reviews to help them decide on how to part with thousands of their after tax dollars.
And here is an example of such a review that reads like a press release, for the 2007 Focus.
@Dinu: Funny you mention that review. It was written as part of a packaged advertorial that ran in one of our magazines last year, digitized, and placed on Wheels.ca. The writer isn’t even an automotive journalist — he’s part of our promotions department.
Great guy, but…how did advertorial content get labeled as editorial on the website? I’ll look into it.
M!
I could go on and on about the lack of REAL information (i.e. : info that cannot be found in a brochure) Canadian automobile journalists give in their reviews.
Here’s a roadtest from Carguide that was a complete waste of paper and is a complete waste of bandwidth.
And here’s one for the City Golf that just skims the surface. Lots of talk about the specs, one comment about the lack of lumbar support, one sentence about how it’s over-engineered, two sentences about how the interior quality is good, and one complaint about the black plastic surrounding the stereo.
Nothing much on how it actually drives, except that it’s good on the highway and your observed gas consumption. Tell us about the acceleration, clutch engagement/the AT’s ability to find the right gear, steering feel, braking distances from set speeds, ability to soak bumps yet still take corners. And compare it to other cars.
The point of reading the review/road test in the first place is to find out how it drives and stacks-up to other cars in its segment/price range. Anyone can check the web for the spec sheet, but not everyone has more than the usual 20 minutes dealer test drive to analyze all of the vehicle’s strengths and weaknesses – that’s why we rely on the pros. And that’s why more and more people turn to model-specific forums and sites like TTAC; because the mainstream press fails to call it how it is, while masquerading as journalists.
@Dinu: I agree completely with your assessment of my City Golf article (and unfortunately many of your points were edited out of the final version for ‘sensitivity’ reasons), but the point is that it was a long-term test car and the wrapup of six months or so of the car being with us.
The issue to me is that it says nowhere that the vehicle was provided to us for six months from the manufacturer. I’m not a fan of long-term tests with cars that aren’t bought, but unfortunately in our case it’s space to fill in the magazine.
Not right, but changing. In a place where it’s taken us six months to label advertorial content as such, you can imagine the fight we’re up against with management and our ad guys. I believe a continued lack of integrity is what will kill our publications.
The more pressing issue is how on earth you actually found those reviews on our site, being probably the worst and hardest to navigate on the web. Cheers, M!
Sajeev — without getting into detail that will bore TTAC readers to tears, About.com templates work on character counts, not word counts. Each section has a limit, and if that limit is 1,000 characters, 1,001 won’t fit. About.com covers some 700+ different topics, and the article template for, say, a product review has to work for all of them — so adding a disclaimer into the template isn’t practical. If I want to put one there, I have to make it part of the article, which means it’s included in the character count.
Addressing a point that Dinu made: I believe that when it comes to Web car reviews, brevity is the soul of wit — something TTAC seems to also embrace with its 800-word limit. Long, rambling reviews just don’t work for the web, and that means picking and choosing what I talk about. It isn’t easy — in my recent BMW M3 review, I didn’t even talk about the M-Power or electronic suspension functions. (Leaving them out, I hasten to add, was not an easy choice.) Yet I did talk about the fact that aluminum trim is a $500 extra. Why? Two reasons. One, I figure that someone reading my M3 review is most likely going to read other M3 reviews — they don’t need to hear the technical facts re-stated for the 8th time. Two, I had to think about what details supported the point I was trying to make about the car, which is framed around my perception of the M3. Did I make the right choice? We’ll see what the page view stats have to say.
Oh, and to address Holydonut’s earlier point — from what I hear, car reviews are more and more becoming an integral factor in a car-purchase decision. Used to be that car reviews were only read by enthusiasts. Now that the Web has taken over, non-enthusiasts have easy access to reviews, and not just the latest-and-greatest on the newsstands — if you’re trying to decide between a Corolla and a Honda, dozens of expert opinions are just a Google away.