In yesterday’s housekeeping post, more than a few readers took TTAC to task for writing flame bait, and then expecting readers not to flame the site, its authors or fellow commentators. A commentator compared us to a seedy bar that expects its patrons to behave like ladies and gentlemen. Compliments on the metaphor, mate, but there’s a reason why TTAC has a ‘tude. It’s the same reason I started this site some nine years ago: the mainstream automotive press are, in the main, craven toadies living in the pocket of the industry that they cover. As a trained journalist, I can see it in the questions my colleagues don’t ask. The obsequious way they timidly point out slight flaws in vehicles, marketing or executives—-and the scurry back to the party line, hoping not to get swatted by the objects of their non-ire for daring to point out that not everything is sunshine and roses, really. With me or without me, this site’s raison d’etre: tell the the no-holds-barred truth about cars. If TTAC’s boisterous or (yes) bombastic in its editorial content, please, look what we’re up against. I present to you Automotive News publisher and editorial director Keith Crain’s revelatory masterpiece: “Whatever Happened to Ethical Behavior” [sub].
Last week, Fortune magazine published a “kiss and tell” story by Steven Rattner about his experiences as part of the U.S. auto task force, a post he resigned last summer. He followed up with a speech and several interviews . . .
Rattner’s article and his public statements are conduct unbecoming any past or present federal official. It is wrong for him to take advantage of private meetings and private information about people and companies and blast them in public. No journalist seems to have noticed his complete lack of ethics while they chase a juicy story . . .
Regardless of what you think of General Motors and their past and present executives, no one who was regulating them and making decisions that determined the life or death of the corporation should be discussing the information and the conversations that he had.
Automotive News (AN) is a tremendous provider of information on the business of making cars. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t blog one of their stories, or chase down a story based on their heads-up. We rely on AN’s hard data for the accuracy of much of our own coverage.
But when the publisher of an industry news source chastises another reliable source (Fortune) for publishing the truth about the biggest story in American automotive history, you’ve got to wonder what the insiders at AN are hiding.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the hippies were right about one thing: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Whatever else you might say about TTAC or its inherently unbalanced posting policy, you can’t accuse us of that.
Crain’s editorial certainly shocked me. It would have been one thing if Rattner’s article distorted the truth. But this was not claimed. Instead, Crain accuses Fortune of violating journalistic ethics by publishing the truth.
I’m confused. When did journalistic ethics come to include maintaining corporate secrecy? Isn’t the role of journalists to dig out the truth, and so better inform the public?
As long as the spirit of the place prevails, I’m happy. What it’s all about is transition and learning curve. Robert Farago knew intuitively where the line had to be drawn. Know it by heart, and there is no problem. The new regime has to learn what RF takes for granted. And in that process is a learning curve. I don’t think there’s any better way than doing it by trial and error, and call the shots as they come. Housekeeping is a start. Cleaning out the closet now and then is a good thing.
It’s alright; we see your favortism towards certain cars and overlooking their flaws. So long as we understand the writer: we can see the bias.
I hate GM with the rest of them but I still have a soft spot for the poor Astra: proof GM can make a good small car for North America.
OK, OK, so what do you want us to do Robert behave like ladies or gentlemen?
On a following thought this is disclaimer: the statement above is neither meant to be flaming or derogatory to an esteemed blog proprietor or patrons of this establishment. Cheers.
Wow, Crain has gone completely mad. Rattner’s piece was one of the most refreshing bits of information to come out of any government worker in a long time. Sure Rattner told the story from his point of view, but considering how much went down under his direction it is refreshing to have his view of it on the record in a timely manner. It was particularly nice not to have Rattner hiding out as “a high placed former official” or “deep throat”. Rattner’s piece struck me as relatively low-spin considering the nature of the source.
For Crain to spin this as an ethical breech shows just how far he and his ilk have gone off the track. Yeah, TTAC is up against a thoroughly corrupt insiders game.
Crain’s remarkably fact-free op-ed is just playing to the home team. Pandering to subscribers is nothing new.
I read Rattner’s piece in Fortune and listened to the press conference. Sorry, but no ethical breaches in either one. Most of the “inside scoop” related to his own thoughts and the dynamics of his team, not the GM executives.
While it was interesting to hear things from Rattner’s perspective, it wasn’t exactly shocking to hear that Wagoner didn’t want to resign. If that was supposed to be some horrible breach of confidentiality, then we may as well just toss out the First Amendment and burn all the newspapers. The Detroit media apparently doesn’t want anything published that could burst the local bubble.
I agree that Keith Crain’s editorial was simply wrong; the ethical issue in GM’s bankruptcy was the federal government’s interventionist policy, not reportage on the impressions of the bureaucrat/consultant implementing the policy.
But defending TTAC’s editorial policy by reference to editorial policies of a mere trade journal seems like a Godwin’s Law corollary (“Oh YEAH, well YOU guys are just industry lap dogs!”).
The real problem is the “Truth About Cars” conceit. Like everyone else, you’re less printing the truth than telling us your impressions of it. Making editorial decisions through the prism of informed cynical snarkiness is unique, interesting and entertaining, but is no less biased than the prism of editorial/ad page ratios.
Like many, I read TTAC because you all provide just another “Interesting Opinion About Cars”. But maybe IOAC.com was taken.
Quadrifoglio:
I guess “the bare-knuckled, unvarnished, high-octane Truth” was already taken as well.
I like the “truth”. I don’t like a vehicles legitimate flaws sugarcoated…or not talked about.
I can only hazard a guess that this whole uproar was spawned from the Lincoln MKT review.
On that point, I thought the assertions presented were well thought out and supported…which clearly bothered the people that don’t like the truth…and that was clear in the comments that flamed the site and author..without actually understanding what he was saying.
I like a reviewer that tells me what the car is really like…….not what the author wishes car to be. And that is why I always hold TTAC reviews higher than I do some of the other reviews both in print and online.
I’ll preface my remarks by stating that I love the site….that being said, there’s a certain amount of snark TTAC should be willing to take if they’re going to mete it out with such relish. While I agree that many blogs degrade into flame wars and spoil the experience for all, I find it troubling that when TTAC goes a little yellow with their journalism, the hackles get raised quickly.
I have always read TTAC for its entertainment value. Though I find myself disagreeing with most of whats written,it’s nevertheless a good read. So I’m all for maintaining the status quo.
Guys, Rattner ain’t no chiorboy, and shouldn’t be passing judgement on the car guys since he’s personally the target of an ongoing SEC investigation for an alleged “pay for play” deal with New York’s pension fund. I’d take anything he says with the appropriately-sized grain of salt.
And removing Wagoner for Henderson wasn’t exactly a stroke of genius.
So it’s unethical for Rattner to discuss impressions of GM and Chrysler gleaned from his work in trying to keep them afloat after billions of other peoples’ money was handed over to them with to little in the way of accountability or transparency? But the cash grab without said accountability and transparency is ethical? I don’t understand that. Ratner was simply telling us what Americans should have been told before our money was handed over – and things we definitely have the right to know now that the wealth transfer is a fait accompli.
Uh Huh….so it’s like with any other institution that sees itself serving a noble purpose…”Do as we say, not as we do.”
I don’t know if Rattner talking to the press was unethical. But I do find Steve Rattner to be a slimebag. Since the Enron scandal, all of us who work in the legal field of “corporate governance” are supposed to pay special attention to make sure the law is followed.
Then you have Steve Rattner come in and fire Rick Wagoner. He did not have the authority to do that. Sure, Rattner did not fire Wagoner. Rattner just took Wagoner up on his offer to resign. Under the law, no difference.
And sure, the US taxpayer had funded GM a lot by then, and was preparing to fund it more. Still, you don’t get the right to fire a company’s CEO no matter how much money you loan the company.
In my opinion, Rattner should have had Wagoner go to the GM board and tell them the deal. Only the GM board, as the representatives of its owners, has the right to fire the CEO.
Nothing in the Constitution or the law gives the President of the United States the right to fire the CEO of a company owned by private investors. That Rattner gave himself that power, in the name of the President, is shameful. To boast about it makes it worse.
There is some gray area in what Steve did. He had both inside and “generally known” information. He undoubtedly signed a non-disclosure agreement agreeing to keep his mouth shut regarding the confidential information he would be involved with.
A lot of what he said was his personal impression of the situation. If it came from private meetings that differed materially from the public face or perception of the corporation, he crossed the line.
Then you have Steve Rattner come in and fire Rick Wagoner. He did not have the authority to do that.
Sure he did. GM wanted capital. It is common for equity investors placing funds in distressed companies to demand management changes.
The most critical components of a business turnaround are management, management, and management, in that order. The lack of money is a symptom of the problem, which is the leadership. Contributing cash in these situations without rolling heads is just unwise.
I initially read the articles about Rattner’s comments and thought nothing of it. I thought it to be true as well. But after reading Crain’s story, I think he might have a point.
When does it become ok to talk about private conversations in a business setting? If the law is being broken, absolutely, it should come out. But that isn’t the case here. Would it have been ok for him to talk to some guys at CocaCola and the publish the secret recipe for Coke? Probably not.
This is pretty much writing comments that were off the record.
I understand people have made comments about the bailout and how it should be open and transparent. I think they are correct. But only so much as we limit what the bailout money can be spent on and what it can’t be spent on.
Lets be fair to the auto-journalists out there. while they do seem to have a bias (C/D & BMW) one has a hard time labeling any car sold in America today a “Shitbox”.
Calling out a car for it’s styling is opinion based reporting. I happen to think there isn’t a more awful looking car than the Toyota Corolla, yet thousands are sold each month.
Questioning a car’s place in the market is reasonable. Denoucing it as a failure based on your opinion of it’s styling is not journalism.
Quadrifoglio :
October 28th, 2009 at 10:47 am
But defending TTAC’s editorial policy by reference to editorial policies of a mere trade journal seems like a Godwin’s Law corollary (”Oh YEAH, well YOU guys are just industry lap dogs!”).
My thoughts exactly. I can see the parallel argument on C/D: “sure we’re milquetoast, but without auto industry goodwill you can say goodbye to wall-to-wall cars!”
I get the impression that the over-the-top style of many TTAC editorials/reviews is designed to stimulate controversy…and hence traffic. Hell the B9 Tribeca review is still listed on the front page. “Look at me! I’m in your face!”
This being said, I have come to appreciate the moderation of the comments (even after getting my own knuckles rapped) as it seems to me that TTAC is refreshingly free of the troglodyte flamefests that prevail elsewhere.
RF: Crain’s editorial made me wonder whether he read it before publishing it or not. What is worse though, is the fact that the automotive press members have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about, as they do not question their integrity. With few exceptions, most of them would be better off (and less dishonest) working for corporate communications departments.
The most critical components of a business turnaround are management, management, and management, in that order. The lack of money is a symptom of the problem, which is the leadership. Contributing cash in these situations without rolling heads is just unwise.
Indeed. By my count, 2 senior level leaders at GM have been let go since the nationalization of GM: Wagonner and LeNeve.
Did I miss anyone?
This ‘turnaround’ doesn’t appear to being taken seriously. Why should it when there are still no consequences for non-performance.
Hold up there! Was Rattner’s article the one where (and I’m just flying from memory here), he walked out of his office on his last triumphant day, past a tourist photographing a statue of Hamilton in the dwindling twilight – and I’m just about gagging on this memory now – and she recognizes him, and, pointing to the statue, says, “You did a good job, he would have been proud.”
Time to crank the BS Detectors a little higher, people. To read such obvious self-aggrandizing nonsense makes me doubt the credibility of the entire article – and the magazine it appeared in.
My post to Keith Crain:
Mr. Crain:
At best you’re being disingenuous. The financial practices at GM & Chrysler were well-known by your staff, who cover the auto industry well. The fact that they didn’t push harder and earlier for those truths to be revealed may point to YOUR lack of journalistic ethics.
I agree with Mr. Rosenfeld. Mr. Rattner’s problems are his own, not yours or mine. All bets were off the moment GM & Chrysler became wards of the state. I know that upsets the balance you’ve held for several decades, but that’s how it goes. Piling on Rattner is just cheap-shot gamesmanship.
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20091026/ANA02/910269997&template=comments#ixzz0VG7cPVIR
jkross22: This ‘turnaround’ doesn’t appear to being taken seriously. Why should it when there are still no consequences for non-performance.
A wholesale firing of top management was probably more than the Obama Administration could stomach. I don’t believe that the administration really wants to run GM.
But that means leaving much of GM’s management – and, by extension, its corporate culture – in place. This, of course, means that GM management still doesn’t think there really is a need for a corporate turnaround.
The vehicles are really just fine…the problem is Consumer Reports; the UAW; free trade; currency fluctuations; wacko-environmentalists; Americans too stupid to see the awesome goodness of the Cobalt, etc., etc.
Take your pick.
It’s alright; we see your favortism towards certain cars and overlooking their flaws. So long as we understand the writer: we can see the bias.
Amen to that! I find it hard to stomach “news” stories that are blantantly ire building. News is not supposed to make you angry all the time. We don’t live in a Ricky Lake talk show, but it certainly seems that way with some cable news and journalistic publications. Why don’t we leave that to the Blogs and Twitter to wholeheartedly disembowel the opposing side.
I love TTAC. Its fine that I read something about a Lincoln from someone who happens to love Fords or who waxes adnauseum about the condition of the auto unions. 9 times out of 10, the author tells you his bias in the article. The purpose is for us to masticate the merits of the argument to see if its edible.
I’ve been a long-time subscriber to AutoNews… but when I was positioning my 1G USD company for the coming bankruptcy of Chrysler, I was glued like a hawk to TTAC… this alone benefited my company to the tune of about 7M USD…
Just as DrudgeReport has shaved-away readers from traditional print media, sites like TTAC must be eating into AN…
Even if AN was soft on the D3, at least it had some measure of credibility … but now, with Mr. Crain jumping the shark as he has, I wonder if it is time for “AutoNews Death Watch” to begin…
Sure he did. GM wanted capital. It is common for equity investors placing funds in distressed companies to demand management changes.
No equity investor has the right to fire a CEO. Sure, you can say I’m not going to invest in your company unless you fire management. But that’s always a decision for the board.
No one gave Rattner the power to fire Wagoner. He just took it.
No equity investor has the right to fire a CEO.
That’s absolutely false. It happens all the time with private equity and is practically routine with venture capital.
No one gave Rattner the power to fire Wagoner. He just took it.
Had GM repaid its debt, Rattner couldn’t have done anything. The money had strings, as it should have.
I’m surprised not to see Obama vilified for this revelation;
The President sat at his bare desk in the Oval Office as the rest of us huddled around a badly functioning speakerphone (“probably from a well-connected government contractor,” the President joked).
….or Rattner for revealing it. Who is the contractor? Halliburton? LOL.
I imagined a Big Button Phone from Toys’R’Us as hand-over from the previous POTUS.
I suspect the MSM didn’t read the entirety of what Rattner wrote, or they didn’t understand it. Crain included, and I couldn’t stomach his dribble.
That’s absolutely false. It happens all the time with private equity and is practically routine with venture capital.
That’s absolutely false. The basic corporate governance rule is that the board of directors hires and fires the CEO. An equity investor has to control the board of directors to hire or fire the CEO.
At least that’s what they taught me in law school. And that’s all I’ve seen as a 25-year corporate finance attorney in Silicon Valley.
“I imagined a Big Button Phone from Toys’R’Us as hand-over from the previous POTUS.”
Didn’t the “Housekeeping” article say to avoid irrelevant (non-policy) political potshots?
RF, I like the piece’s title. It’s nice to see a reference to Capra’s wonderful short films that explained the conflict and why America must be committed to it.
people posted comments on the housekeeping post?
now i think these guys have too much time on their hands. when you read rules & regs you don’t complain, either you put up or log off…
that’s my opinion… Farago, nice to hear back from you…
and i do agree with the Rattner story, it would be highly prejudicial for a government official to blabber on about what he uncovered in a recent position. maybe in 25 years… and if what he says is whole true, and i suspect it is… then GM got much more than they deserve… not that we all didn’t collectively know that…
An equity investor has to control the board of directors to hire or fire the CEO.
Perhaps your years of legal experience have kept you too busy to read the newspapers, but you should have noticed that the bailout plan also gave control of the Board to those providing the bailout capital and largess, namely the governments of the United States, Canada and Ontario.
In any case, when a DIP lender or white knight partner provides $50 billion in cash and prevents the collapse of the company, then guess who gets to call the shots. If GM didn’t like it, they should have borrowed the money from someone else. The bailouts were not an entitlement program, the cash had strings attached. If anything, there should have been more strings, not fewer of them.
http://www.speedsportlife.com/2009/09/21/avoidable-contact-28-lincoln-and-cadillac-mkt-and-cts-v-one-last-time-to-the-death/
As if proof were needed that journalists from all sides view and review vehicles in a very different way, check out this review by TTAC’s own Jack Baruth on the MKT and then compare this to Robert Farago’s view. We can all make up our own minds which article we find more amusing, or better written, or carries more weight.
Both views exist – it is important to weigh them all up before deciding if they are either wrong or right. Me, I read these things for amusement and entertainment but not for authority per se. That is my job when I head down to the dealer to try one out for myself.