I’m honored that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has decided to publish my Op-Ed on GM’s political entanglement in tomorrow’s paper and online. [link here] I trust the piece will bring TTAC some fresh eyeballs. But it’s not the most important aspect of the deal. This website didn’t get to 1 million visits per month through powerful links (thanks, Instapundit), media showboating (shukran, Al-Jazeera) or celebrity journalism (oy, Yates). We did it by providing you, our Best and Brightest, with a steady diet of no-holds-barred automotive news, rants and reviews. The most thrilling bit of the WSJ publication: it will confer legitimacy on our collective mission. Meanwhile and in any case, thanks for your patience with our recent technical troubles. TTAC’s new owner, a Canadian outfit called VerticalScope, is gradually cleaning up some of the, uh, challenged back end software. Our new tech guy, Jonathon Marshall, is a creative, methodical and tenacious bastard. Kinda like us. And you. Cue the “Barney” song. Or better yet, not.
Congrats, RF.
But as for the picture of the White House as a car sales lot: one sign is missing. The one that says, “Buy Here, Pay Here.”
This site’s Canadian, eh?
Congrats, Robert. That’s big — really big.
Great work. I’m happy for me and others, this is a great site. Now if the WSJ just add my and others commnents at the bottom. LOL.
Congrats
Stay hungry and irreverent!
Great news!
I’m looking forward to reading your article in The Journal when it lands in my driveway tomorrow!
This site’s Canadian, eh?
OMG it’s socialist.
–
Remember RF, more figures, less ranting, this is the big time.
Got bandwidth?
So you have sold out?
RF…Well deserved, thrilling news! Congratulations!
The integrity of your well-thought-out and articulated, yet no-holds-barred approach stands well apart from so much of the rest of what passes these days for authoritative automotive journalism….or any journalism for that matter.
I hope we’ll be seeing a lot more of you on and in the MSM, but hope we don’t lose you from TTAC. Please don’t forget “what brung you to the dance.”
Too bad I just let my subscription to the online WSJ lapse. I just can’t get myself to give Murdoch’s news empire my money. Great job though Robert. Will you be allowed to cross-post the piece here?
John:
No need for a subscription. Click the article from the front page. Take the title from the “snippet” that you get for free.
Google that title and Google will provide you the link to the full article that paying subscribers get.
I’m quite pleased the Canadians “own you” now, maybe now we’ll get some Canadian sales stats and analysis (hint hint).
Is now the time to ask for a ‘mobile.ttac.com’?
The Internet filter and logging here at work is starting to become worrisome……. so I got to start using the Blackberry.
All in all, congrats’s.
Whatever you think of the WSJ, it’s still the best daily paper out there. Good work; looking forward to reading it.
Whatever you think of the WSJ, it’s still the best daily paper out there.
Their news coverage is rather good, for the most part.
It’s online now. Who will be the first to comment?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476752573308561.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Excellent; congratulations.
Shockingly tame by TTAC standards. Very well suited to the WSJ.
It is with mixed feelings that I offer congratulations on your WSJ debut. Yet, sharing the editorial page with you today are Karl Rove and John Bolton, two people who, shall we say, lack candor, to put it mildly. Any pretense to objectivity (and credibility) is further eroded.
Far worse is the fact that any trace of your writing style (which I admire) was completely absent from the editorial. No pithy puns, none of your trademark alliteration (“motorized mayhem is manifest”) in short, no literary cleverness. Talk about defenestration.
It read just like a typical WSJ editorial. Hard to see how anyone would be attracted to the TTAC site based on this.
Welcome to the big time, I guess.
Good piece RF…congrats!
Kick ass! Congrats RF!
Hah, interesting, I was able to read it in the clear without needing a subscription. I agree with AnalogKid and Michael, it doesn’t sound like Robert at all. Maybe you should try putting some of your editorials up on Huffington Post, a place where a less buttoned down tone of voice is welcome. The WSJ boasts a combined circulation of 2 million including just under a million online subscribers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_street_journal The Huffington Post clocked just under 9 million unique visitors in February of this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post
Maybe you should try putting some of your editorials up on Huffington Post, a place where a less buttoned down tone of voice is welcome.
Um…
Yes, but that’s 2 million movers and shakers. Huffington post, 9 million leftie college kids who need a bath.
Yes, but that’s 2 million movers and shakers. Huffington post, 9 million leftie college kids who need a bath.
You must be blissful.
http://www.quantcast.com/huffingtonpost.com#demographics
@ RF
Did you get a complimentary phone call from Sweet Pete Delorezo and the other ex-Chrysler(??) turkey (can’t be bothered thinking of his name)?
@Rix,
Unfortunately, per the Huff Post Demographics, we can say that America is now a bunch of 30-something, childless, self-interested (in a non-global sense), over-educated (likely under-experienced) whinging metro-sexual boys.
@long126mike,
Thanks for the link.
@RF,
Your article was an authoritative presentation of the facts. Well done. Very WSJ!
Well, it was an authoritative presentation of conjecture. It’s too early to tell what’s going to happen. The biggest fear of conservatives, of course, it that Obama really does take over and is successful. Wouldn’t that be hilarious.
Wouldn’t take much either. One or two cars that sell decently and a couple quarters of modest profit.
The article contains less conjecture than Death Watch 1, that predicted the bankruptcy of GM several years ago.
Interesting read, non-inflamitory, facts and observations to support the thesis. A worthy read.
What do you mean by “(Oy, Yates)”? A few decades ago, at least, he was writing critically in the same vein as you often do. He did write, after all, what I thought was a decent book – The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry.
gottacook: Yates dipped his toe in the TTAC pool but couldn’t stand the sharks, er, B&B.
Brock Yates: Traffic. Deal With It.
Brock Yates: Does Carlos Ghosn Dream of Electric Sheep?
Brock Yates: Grosse Pointe Blank
Al-Jazeera and Wall Street Journal, almost in the same week? Good work, RF. Good work.
Congrats on the increased exposure. Looks like those 500 GM death watches finally bore fruit.
I thought you own TTAC personally, tough? Or did you mean owner as web host?
I just wish GM had failed during the Bush Administration rather during Obama’s.
Obama really wasn’t suppossed to do anything to help GM or Chrysler because that’s not the job of the President. But, if I were President, I wouldn’t want that on my legacy so I’d have ended up doing something to help them too.
If only everything had failed under Bush…then we coulda just added it to his list of f-ups.
@ Ingvar
Interesting observation there as The Murdoch Masters Of Media at Newscorpse clearly didn’t do their research very well.
Bill-o-the-Clown will be apoplectic!
Thanks for the kind words.
No question: the rant was tame by TTAC standards. It was pretty dry to start, and then edited from there. Still, the ideas are intact, and it remains reasonably coherent.
It just goes to show you why there IS a TTAC. We need a place where we can really let our hair down and let rip, both in terms of style and substance.
As I said above, the payoff here is legitimacy. A sense that the opinions expressed on this site are worthy of serious contemplation.
So let’s just say I was wearing a Trojan. I mean, let’s call the op-ed a Trojan horse. Anyone opening the door and surfing over to TTAC will get what they deserve. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Michael Karesh, you call this piece “shockingly tame”. I’d say rather that it’s clear, well-reasoned, rational, and extremely well written. Completely up to WSJ’s high standards (forget the editorial page!). I don’t miss the hyperbole a bit. In fact, the lack of rant exposes the true RF, a superb reporter who can marshal his facts and make a case. More of this at TTAC would add immeasurably to the site’s already growing prominence. Again, cheers to you Robert!
Good point in demonstrating that the Obama admin should get the hell away and let GM fix themselves. Other than that, just the usual GM bashing by you.
Well, you’re on BHO’s radar now, Mr. Farago. Hope your tax ducks are all in a row and your name is not an entry in some madame’s “little black book”.
Now that’s the kind of editorial I’d like to see more often here – measured at the expense of ranting.
I have a feeling the editorial reply comments are going to be a lot more measured and rational than what we’re used to here, too.
Great work – it came up on Google News last night under the Business section.
When I first heard of the new owner, I thought it interesting that TTAC and GM Inside News are now distant corporate cousins. Capitalism rules!
I saw the op-ed piece in the Journal this morning, before logging on to TTAC. I thought it was a good piece, and right on. Good job, and congratulations.
RF: Congrats on getting published.
More seriously and more morosely, here are some of VerticalScope’s advertisers:
http://www.verticalscope.com/aboutus/ourclient.html
TTAC will now be in the same moral position as Car & Driver, Motor Trend, etc. Where do we go from here?
TTAC has never refused automotive advertising. We simply refuse to allow it to influence our editorial integrity.
When VerticalScope assumed control of TTAC, I told them I would not continue unless they guaranteed our editorial independence. This they did, knowing full well that I would resign before compromising our ability to tell the truth about cars.
Otherwise, what’s the point?
This site’s Canadian, eh?
Like maple syrup, Canada’s evil oozes over the United States.
nice job, RF. It comes across as very well thought out.
Very good piece. I didn’t agree with the main thesis, but it was well written and balanced. I’d rather see something intelligent from one who doesn’t agree with me than a mindless rant from someone who does.
let GM fix themselves.
We’ve already seen what it looks like when GM tries to fix itself. It isn’t pretty.
I have no problem if they want to (try to and fail in their attempt to) fix themselves. But first, they need to repay the taxpayer’s money. Maybe the salespeople at GM dealerships need to pool their cash together to become GM’s DIP lender and pay us in full, if they believe in the company so much.
Well, according to the comment thread, Robert, you’re just a mouthpiece for the UAW. So, there’s that sorted.
Pch101 :
June 12th, 2009 at 10:25 am
let GM fix themselves.
We’ve already seen what it looks like when GM tries to fix itself. It isn’t pretty.
I really don’t think GM has ever tried to fix themselves. I don’t think anyone in upper management thinks that there is anything wrong with the company. They feel that it’s all due to things that are outside GM’s control (like the economy). Nevermind the fact that GM has been bleeding marketshare and cash for years.
RF: Thanks for the clarification.
RF…I didn’t know you were a “mouthpiece for the UAW”…as they said in the comments.
:)