Find Reviews by Make:
Jim Dollinger (a.k.a. Buickman) never met a windmill he couldn’t tilt at. Our kinda guy really. We’ve already chronicled the dealer’s battle with GMInside News (GMI). When the site’s administrators grew tired of Jim’s front line reporting and corporate criticism, they banned him from posting (later rescinded as a “technical problem”). The recently GMI-re-enabled Buickman has just informed us that he used his access to post Ken Elias’ General Motors Death Watch 201 over on the website’s forum (careful with that copyright, Jimbo). It was immediately deleted. We here at TTAC don’t mind fan boy sites, but just like the corporation it covers, GMI needs to step up and take it like a man.
16 Comments on “GM Inside News Can’t Handle The Truth...”
Read all comments
Is anyone really surprised they removed it? I would be more surprised if they didn’t. No company wants bad news posted in their own forums. Especially when they are staring down the barrel of CH 11, or CH 7.
GM isn’t the only company that would do this. Try doing it on a Ford site, or Mopar site, or even Sony or Nike. It isn’t shocking, or news of any sort. Companies aren’t going to support bad news about their products. That is smart business practice. Now ignoring it and not addressing the problems that might have caused it, that is another thing all together (Hello, GM?)
GMI is not an official GM corporate website. Its a GM enthusiast site, one which has grown increasingly deaf to the declining fortunes of the company. Most, not all, seem to think GM’s return to glory is just around the corner fueled by the CTS, Malibu, Corvette and also a entirely RWD line up of BMW lite products for Pontiac.
There are alot of sites like that. As soon as someone gets serious, or has a pointed comment, they get slapped. It’s how it’s done!!
I bet that the Toyota site is just like that. Oh, they don’t have one.
Instead of taking only Buickman’s explanation of the events at GMI, has any representative of GMI been asked to comment on their policies or surrounding the specific situations surrounding Buickman?
The moderators and administrators at that site have been specifically very critical of GM and several of their recent decisions, and I’ve never seen a voice questioning GM’s viability as a going concern be silenced by the staff.
The issue here is most likely less Buickman and more TTAC; I’ve heard that it’s an unwritten rule that TTAC may not be linked on GMI. Is it possible – even likely – that in spite of what he thinks, one individual may not be so important that the site specifically targets him or his viewpoint, considering GMI has provided him with an outlet to express his opinion hundreds, if not thousands of times over the past few years?
Having been a GMI member for over three years, I’m confident that had Buickman linked to the identical editorial, but on another site, there would not have been an issue.
@monkeyboy:
What, you’ve never heard of Toyota Nation? Oh wait, you were trying (and failing) to say that nobody could possibly be a fan of a company you personally don’t like. Never mind.
I’m a member of that site and think that it’s moderated rather well. Much better than Blue Oval News, which I’m glad I left. Every single thread ended up being about the Panther cars. Every. Single. One.
Toyota website did not seem to mind a negative posting
A friend had a Toyota tacoma with more than 300,000 miles on it. He was online on the toyota high mileage website talking about how little maintenance he has done over the 12+ years he owned it(1 headlight, brakes, oil changes). Jokingly he posted on the site how disapointed he was that now his exhaust system was loud because it had developed a crack/hole in it. Two weeks later he received a check from Toyota for Seventy dollars toward a new muffler. He brought the check into work to show all us die hard american car guys.
The following year I went out bought my wife a toyota sequioa.
I don’t own a Toyota so why would I go read blogs about it??
I don’t frequent the scrap booking sites either.
Does that make me a bad person?
I DID have a large banner of the Chevy Silverado towing the Toyota NASCAR race trailer.
Very telling.
GMI is a boy’s club that has the same not-invented-here syndrome as GM does. If you kow-tow to the prevailing dogma that GM spouts, you will get along fine at GMI. If you express individual thought, you are mocked by the “elite” admins. It is understandable, as many of GMI’s members are GM/GM Canada employees. Too clickish for me, though.
I’m a member of a “prominent” Subaru site (Don’t laugh, dammit!). Criticism is not only accepted, seems to be the norm for every new Subaru unveiling(See: “It looks like a Mazada3!). Sure, there are plenty of supporters, but there are many detractors. We bitched mightily that the 08 WRX really didn’t deserve the title, was soft, and failed to perform like WRX’s of previous generations. Interestingly enough, SoA must have come to the the same conclusion.
Pissing contests, internet: serious business, lulz, etc.
Okay, back to real news now.
For a site that allegedly doesn’t tolerate criticism of GM, comments on the news piece about the Pontiac G3 coming to the US sure don’t seem to validate that:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/pontiac-g3-comes-state-side-69330/
“scarey” :
September 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
GMI is a boy’s club that has the same not-invented-here syndrome as GM does. If you kow-tow to the prevailing dogma that GM spouts, you will get along fine at GMI. If you express individual thought, you are mocked by the “elite” admins. It is understandable, as many of GMI’s members are GM/GM Canada employees. Too clickish for me, though.
I’ve never read a more inaccurate summary of a website. Ever. How much time have you spent there and exactly how much have you read? I’ve been a member for FIVE years. Nothing you posted even hints at reality.
First of all, the last “Buickman incident” was indeed a technical issue. Nobody cares enough to block him in such a round-about way.
Second of all, GMI probably deleted that post because of an apparent agreement between the two sites. TTAC didn’t like GMI’ers coming over here in the past because we, gasp, offered counterpoints to the TTAC GM Hate Parade. So, GMI wouldn’t link to or allow members to link to TTAC editorials and reviews so that the more extreme GM fans wouldn’t be tempted to start an inter-website flame war. I think the policy was done as a courtesy to this site, and yet here the site goes blasting GMI without even contacting a GMI Administrator for clarification.
Aren’t “journalists” supposed to, you know, make sure they have the facts right before they report?
Buick61 :
You are of course entitled to your opinions about the editorial independence of GMI. As you are a longtime reader of that site, I will defer to your knowledge.
HOWEVER…
1. The last Buickman incident was not a “technical incident.”
2. TTAC has no agreement with GMI, or any website, on any level. Further, we actively encourage dissenting opinion (including yours).
[NB: GMI never contacted us to refute the chareg that they censored Jim Dollinger. If they had, we would have– and still will– publish their reply without editing.]
TTAC accepts editorial submissions from anyone, on any subject (email robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com). Anyone is free to register and comment, from any perspective.
We only ask that commentators observe our anti-flaming policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. That’s it.
Which your comment violates. But in the interests of clarity, I will let it stand.
Perhaps “agreement” was a bit too formal. I heard there were rustlings from TTAC, and GMI took steps to prevent an inter-site war of words, which is exactly what these Buickman posts are doing.
Why should GMI be the ones that have to contact you to refute a story? Isn’t that backasswards? Shouldn’t you be checking the verocity of Buickman’s claims with GMI before it “goes to print?” Otherwise, what’s stopping you from posting any wild half truth you feel like? I feel like there should be SOME effort on your part to obtain a statement from an accused party. Otherwise, they may not even be aware that they were even implicated of doing some bad deeds, and, therefore, they wouldn’t be aware of anything that needed refuting.
And how have you substantiated that Buickman’s log-in difficulties weren’t a technical issue?
I’m very well aware of GMI’s bans and warnings, as I’ve been on the receiving end a few times. What Buickman experienced is not something they do to offending members. Ever. So why is he special? He’s not.
Why should GMI be the ones that have to contact you to refute a story? Isn’t that backasswards? Shouldn’t you be checking the verocity of Buickman’s claims with GMI before it “goes to print?
According to journalistic standards, such is certainly the case. The TTAC News section isn’t really an impartial news service as much as mini-editorials with topical themes, though. At least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten…
And how have you substantiated that Buickman’s log-in difficulties weren’t a technical issue?
Also a fair question, I suppose.
“We here at TTAC don’t mind fan boy sites, but just like the corporation it covers, GMI needs to step up and take it like a man.”
Buickman has had his say… over and over and over again. Compare any two Buickman posts on GMi and you will read the exact same thing: “Return to Greatness will save GM”, and “Red Ink Rick is the devil”. It gets a little old. I’d say Buickman has had his say, and the day he has anything NEW to add to his multiple rants on GMi he will be welcomed to do so.