After more than two years of free content, The Truth About Cars is about to accept advertising– despite the publisher’s apprehension about advertising’s corrosive effect on editorial independence. It’s an understandable concern. Browse the auto "reviews" in your local daily newspaper. In the main, they consist of regurgitated press releases juxtaposed with stock photos, buried amongst dealer ads. The monthly automotive “buff books” claim they’re above such compromise. They maintain that they provide objective assessments of their test subjects. At the risk of throwing stones from a house about to add a greenhouse, can any publication that features more advertisements than content be objective?

Car and Driver, Road & Track, Automobile, Motor Trend and the rest of the magazines further down the car mag food chain are all supported by advertising. Unless a magazine is subsidized by a non-profit organization (e.g. Consumer Reports) or charges an exorbitant price per issue, it can’t survive without advertising. Few readers have problems with ads per se; they consider them wallpaper. But when the ads outweigh the content, questions begin to arise about who’s calling the editorial shots. Put a one or two-page ad for a new car in the middle of a glowing review of the same and those suspicions can easily turn to full-scale paranoia. Sneak in a multi-page "special advertising section" formatted to look and read like the rest of the magazine and credibility stretches to breaking point.

The stakes are certainly high enough to tempt an ad exec to mount an assault on his or her employer’s Chinese walls; advertising brings the buff books seriously big bucks. A full page ad in Car and Driver’s flimsy pages currently ranges from $102k to $157k. An inside or back cover will set a sponsor back between $182k and $198k. According to Folio magazine, Car and Driver raked in over $104m in ad revenue in the first half of ‘05, a figure that’s 26% higher than the same period in ‘04. The figures for the first half of 2006 will likely be even higher.  With revenues like that, it’s no wonder the average automotive publication’s pages are dominated by advertising. Here are the stats for January–July 2006:

Motor Trend: 693.05 (99 ad pages/month)

Car and Driver: 622.20 (89 ad pages/month)

Road & Track: 622.18 (89 ad pages/month).

These three leading automotive publications average about 175 total pages per issue. And that means your favorite buff book is approximately 55% advertising. The remaining 45% includes photos, page headers, indices and lots of other things that an uncharitable reader might call filler.  By the time you factor those items from the equation you’re lucky if 30% of the magazine is anything particularly useful. Does this unequal balance between editorial and advertising cause any uneasiness about editorial independence amongst the magazine’s publishers? Nope. Motor Trend’s publisher has publicly bragged about the fact that his publication has the highest advertising content in its market segment.

Less objectively, the bathroom has become a fitting location to peruse these publications, given the amount of crap they contain. I’ve read the magazines listed above since I was 12.  I’ve watched them slide steadily into editorial abulia. While the ads have flourished like kudzu on horse manure, articles have become shorter and shallower (usually with more photos than text), and the road tests now read more like product endorsements than automotive reviews.

Perhaps it’s coincidental that this decline parallels the magazines’ increased ad revenues. Perhaps not. When you consider just how far down the slippery slope of compromise these publications have slid, you have to wonder what kind of incestuous relationships exists between the publishers and their ad agencies. Whether or not shady deals go down in ad execs’ cubicles, it’s clear that journalistic integrity isn’t their driving force any more.

The same disease has infected cyberland. While you expect auto magazines’ web sites to reflect their print counterpart’s pattern, many “independent” automotive sites are now dominated by advertising. Some of the ads are extremely clever/morally reprehensible: you think you’re getting objective information when you’re actually reading a page sponsored by a manufacturer. Only a handful of automotive web sites have the integrity to label ads clearly or reveal the perks they receive from the automakers whose products they’re reviewing.

TTAC publisher Robert Farago claims that the same editorial compromise will never occur here. To his credit (or discredit), Farago is a zealot who understands exactly what’s at stake. He’s publicly committed to maintaining this website’s editorial independence at all costs. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the reading. Over the next few months you’ll be able to make your own determination: will TTAC keep its edge when it transforms from an amateur hobby to professional enterprise? Watch this space… 

In a recent comment, Stryker1 raised an excellent point: TTAC seems to have lost a bit of its "edge.”  Upon reflection, I agree.  I’m not one for excuses, but I reckon the loss of an internal organ threw me off my groove.  At the same time, TTAC welcomed a large number of new writers and lost touch with a few familiar voices.  The ad thing’s also jerking my chain.  And the light’s bad in here.  Anyway, I'm fully aware that TTAC will rise of fall depending on its ability to stick to its original remit: kick-ass reviews and take-no-prisoners industry-oriented rants.  Here’s how I’m thinking of playing it…   

The QOTD (Question of the Day) saw the site through my recent absence.  When I returned, I relied on the "hey you" format to pad content.  Sorry.  From now on, the QOTD will run no more than three times per week, probably less.  Equally important, the question will gain gravitas, covering subjects related to our mission, like Why Has Toyota Quality Gone South?  And Should Lincoln build a Rolls Royce?

I also realize the posting schedule has been a bit erratic (though not as bad as it was a month ago).  From now on, I’ll put up two posts per day on weekdays (AM and PM EST), with an additional podcast as and when.  The material will consist of vehicle reviews (and more of ‘em) and serious-minded rants.  On Saturday and Sunday, I’ll fire-up lifestyle, first personal narrative and nostalgia pieces.  We’ll also run our motor sports coverage on the weekend.

At the risk of sounding egomaniacal, I’ll also amp-up my own contributions.  Although TTAC’s administrative demands (and the need to earn some money elsewhere) have made it difficult for me to sit down and do the biz, I know that I need to deliver the goods and lead by example.  So I will make sure my byline appears here at least twice a week.  Stand back!  I’ve got a Vaio, and I’m not afraid to use it.

As for the specific content, I'm open to suggestions.  Obviously, the Death Watch continues, as do the reviews (our pursuit of a press car booker should bear some fruit later this month).  Which type of [new] cars float your boat: budget, mid-market, exotics or all and sundry?  Are there any editorial topics you enjoy more than others (e.g. alternative fuels, hybrids, muscle cars, safety, media/corporate critiques)?  Are there any you'd rather not see (I'm not gonna help you on that one)?  I've got an excellent team of scribes who enjoy editorial direction.  Help me help them to help you help me help you.   

Meanwhile, if you look up on the top right of the main menu bar, you’ll see the word “blog” has snuck in.  As these behind-the-scenes, stop-me-before-I-make-a-fool-of-myself deals have proven popular in their own right, I decided to give you the chance to steer TTAC on a regular basis.  Just as soon as Redwing tells me how to upload text and photos, TTAC’s new blog will be a daily feature.  I’ll still bring the noise to the main page when needs must, but the blog will provide the kind of detail that gives OCD’s a good name and keeps things party real.  Or something like that.

And there you have it.  I’ve got a good feeling about the site these days.  As Sam might say, by fall, we should have our varkies by maker (pigs in a row).  TTAC will be tight, right (more often than not) and commercially viable.  Of course, your comments, criticisms, suggestions and submissions are always welcome.    

I’ve looked at this TTAC paid subscription thing seven ways to Sunday.  After more than four months, I still can't make it work.  According to the vast majority of web-savvy TTAC’ers, this is no bad thing.  Your advice has been steadfast: accept advertising.  So when Federated Media Publishing offered to run TTAC’s advertising business for 40% of gross, I looked into it.  My contact, Bill Brazell, assured me that TTAC’s editorial independence would be sacrosanct.  Yeah, right.  And then I read the fine print…

2.2 Review of Potential Advertisements.  When FMP locates a potential buyer for all or part of an Available Advertising Space subject to an Availability Notice, FMP will send Author a notice (an “Advertising Review Notice”) to the email address specified on the Author Information Sheet.  Each Advertising Review Notice will identify the buyer, the nature of advertisement the buyer wishes to place, the time period(s) during which the advertisement would run, and the price the buyer has offered to pay for the advertisement.  Author will promptly respond to each Advertising Review Notice received and will indicate to FMP whether or not Author approves the proposed advertising described therein.  

Advertising sucks.  But it’s become clear that I can’t “gate” the TTAC community (sub it up) without losing the majority of current readers and, far worse, the possibility of new ones.  Truth be told, if Federated Media Publishing hadn’t contacted me, that’s the way I would have gone, come Hell or lost visitors.  But I don’t have the energy or financial resources to make it work, and I really do believe that the Fed’s different from the packs of jackals who’ve attempted to hijack TTAC in the past.  To wit, another part of the contract gives me the right to restrict certain types of advertising, advertising categories and named advertisers.  And then there's Federated Media Publishing’s “Author Mores:"

Authors who join the FM network of sites hold these values in common:

– Voice and Point of View: Strong voices and intelligent points of view drive robust conversations.

– Accuracy: Some FM sites are journalistic in nature; others are not. Regardless, FM sites strive for accuracy regarding items we post as facts.

– Community: Weblogs are conversations, not lectures. The community that gathers around each site is the essence of its value, and we treat that community accordingly. We listen and respond to feedback, and incorporate it into the way we manage our sites.

– Responsibility: We take our role in the community we serve seriously, and feel responsible for our own words. When we make mistakes, we correct them. We do not seek to use our sites maliciously.

– Transparency: We err on the side of disclosure to our readers. If we have an interest in something we’re writing about, we disclose that interest. We are as transparent as we can be about our site’s statistics, practices and policies.

Bottom line: TTAC needs money, if only to pay our writers a fee [more] commensurate with their time and talent.  So I’ve decided to bite the bullet and sign-on with the Fed.  I formally declare right here that I will never let advertising compromise TTAC’s editorial.  At no point, now or in the future, will we pull our punches to please commercial sponsors.  By now, I hope you’ll take me at my word.  If not, well, by my deeds I shall be known.   

OK, now, TTAC needs some help.  First, we need a car booker: someone who can liaise with automotive manufacturers’ press departments to secure test vehicles for our far-flung editorial team.  (I lack both the charm and the time for the gig.)  The job’s best suited to a pistonhead who doesn’t have a “real job,” who doesn’t require a “real salary” or any “any” benefits.  They need to be organized enough to remember who got what when, who’s getting what when (and where) and what we need to get for whom when and where.  I’ll pay a stipend (for now) for each vehicle booked, plus all phone expenses.  It’s an ideal job for someone who wants to get into automotive PR (baby Darth?).  

We also need a racing correspondent, for NASCAR or any other major race series.  There’s a lot of baseless hype and shady corporate shenanigans in mainstream motorsports, and I’d like TTAC to deal the inside dope.  Obviously, the pay sucks, but the glory is infinite.  If you’re interested in either position, use the contact button and email me your qualifications. Meanwhile, thanks again for your support.  I promise TTAC will continue to lead the crusade for honest and passionate automotive journalism.  I won’t let you down.

Once a pistonhead, always a pistonhead.  Even as the paramedics were dragging my sorry ass through the meat wagon’s side door, I felt a scalding blast from the turnouts and thought there’s got to be a better way to vent the big rig’s exhaust.  Even as I thrashed on the gurney like a freshly-landed marlin, I wondered why the manufacturer hadn’t fitted the ambulance with air suspension.  And then a nice lady gassed me up so a bunch of highly-trained anal retentives could cut my stomach a few times, insert some surgical steel, dice my gall bladder, suck out the remains and dump the diseased bits into a bio-hazard bag.  Ah, but did they leave me with enough bile to lead TTAC into battle?

Post-op, I clock a Lexus TV ad.  A robot "hand" slowly molests a gleaming GS somethingorother.  The announcer asks me if it’s possible to engineer desire.  Even in my drug-addled state I know the difference between engineering a car that stimulates desire, and engineering desire.  No wonder BMW pulled their press cars from TTAC in Lexus’ name: the automakers have entered into an alliance (they’re all the rage these days) to bio-engineer customers who lust after deeply flawed ride quality (IS350) and demented ergonomics (iDrive).  Beats admitting you made a mistake.

An indeterminate amount of time later, Sam drops off a little light reading: Hemingway’s Death in the Afternoon and Car & Driver.  No contest.  Or nothing but a contest; America’s premier automotive buff book offers its readers a seasonal shootout between the Jaguar XK convertible, Cadillac XLR-V convertible, BMW 650i Cab, Porsche C2 Cab and Mercedes SL550.  I marshal enough brain cells to remember that Brock Yates told me his old boss loves comparos ‘cause he can’t write or edit for shit [Legal disclaimer: Mr. Yates might have said he respects and admires Csabe Csere, both as an artist and a man.]  To the immediate consternation of red-blooded pistonheads everywhere, writer Barry Winfield begins by gushing “We have some pretty blossoms in the bunch this year.” 

As I read on, the heart rate monitor measures my displeasure.  I vaguely recall that the piece found something nice to say about a $100k+ Caddy two-door with wooden brakes, numb steering and less luggage space than a bread basket.  Hey, Hitler loved dogs.  I conclude that choosing the “best” vehicle from this melanoma of high-priced motorized toupees is like arguing over which Victoria’s Secret model would look best draped over your arm at a high school reunion.  And yet choose they did, in their own special way, rating everything from slalom speed to… rear seat room? Go figure.

I long for a direct line to Michael Karesh.  I want my resident statistician, the bane of Consumer Reports and JD Power, to prove that C&D’s scoring system makes as about as much sense as my 2am conversation with the nurse (Take my vitals? What the Hell’s wrong with yours?).  Anyone who can’t guess the results of a C&D comparo before opening the front cover isn’t trying hard enough—which is the same criticism you could level at the magazine itself.  Perhaps they should rename Car & Driver Asleep at the Wheel.  Meanwhile, what about a buff book comparo?  Gotta have facto: 0.

I return to base to see if a three year old understands the meaning of “touch Daddy’s tummy and die.”  After experimenting with verticality, I log on.  I discover that Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Williams have held down the fort, or, more accurately, surrendered the asylum to the inmates.  Well God bless you all.  I cannot tell you how satisfying it is to watch a community of like-minded souls set up camp inside an edifice that I struggled to build on your behalf— without knowing who the Hell “you” were.  It’s kinda like a termite infestation, but in a nice way. 

As I wander through the Halls of Vicodin Valhalla, deleting 758 pieces of spam, a TTAC’er links me to a victory: an Edmunds.com disclaimer!  Well, almost. “Edmunds attended a manufacturer-sponsored event, to which selected members of the press were invited, to facilitate this report.”  I laugh.  It hurts.  This is what passes for truth over at Edmunds?  It’s a classic combination of obfuscation (Edmunds attended, but who paid for what?), self-congratulation (“selected members”) and bad writing (upon which I shall not pass further comment).  Suddenly, I feel better.  

If this episode has taught me anything, it’s that I am not alone.  You guys “get it.”  You understand the righteous indignation I feel when automobile manufacturers and the media elite try to fool the people who, ultimately, pay their salaries.  These industry wonks don’t appreciate, understand or respect our passion.  They treat us with dismissive cynicism.  But we will not be silenced.  Whether or not I sit at these controls, the truth will out.  As that weird guy from Law and Order said at the end of a particularly dense episode, “this pursuit of the truth thing is not for the faint hearted.”  Gall bladder I don’t got.  Heart I do.  Thanks for watching the place for me.  I’m back.

The mighty Farago has taken ill. As our editor in chief is even more of a tenacious bastard in real life than he lets on here, we predict Robert will be back to full strength within a few days. Unfortunately for you, dear TTAC reader, that means no updates for the next couple of earth rotations. Until then, enjoy the archives.

It’s been while since I’ve written about The Truth About Cars (TTAC).  As you may recall, we were preparing to turn TTAC into a subscription site when we re-launched.  When I discovered that our payment software wasn’t ready for prime time, and the site design needed tweaking, I put the move on hold.  I’ve used the interregnum to ramp up our content, familiarize myself with the new site’s back end, commission a few improvements and… think.  I’ve re-read all your emails, sent out a survey, talked to a bunch of financial folks and come up with a new plan.  Here’s how I see it…

Imagine TTAC as a gated community.  By closing the gates (making it members only), we can maintain the site’s high quality housing (our rants and reviews) while avoiding “outside” pollution and crime (advertiser influence).  You can play (read and comment) with like-minded enthusiasts, safe from flame-throwers (flame throwers).  After surveying our readers, I know a fair few of you believe that our mission is worthwhile, and that paying $5 a month for this little corner of cyberspace is a fair proposition.  That said, timing is.  Everything.

Before we changed the site design, TTAC had 22k unique visitors per day.  When we made the jump, we lost 8k daily visitors, and our momentum.  The drop happened for two main reasons.  First, our New Content Notification system and RSS feeds went south.  Some of the faithful lost touch.  (Both systems are back on-line.)  Second, our Google links evaporated, which accounted for about 20% of our previous traffic.  (These too have been resurrected.)  We’re recovering lost ground, one reader at a time.  When we get back up to a large and healthy pool of potential subscribers, I can make the switch to subscription-only, confident that the take-up rate will make it worth our while.  But–

Once the gates are closed, the chances of recruiting new members will diminish dramatically.  Sure, automotive enthusiasts will still find their way to our door.  But the vast majority will look at the fancy gates and click on down the road.  And then I thought of a golf resort.  The general public is free to hang out at the main hotel.  If they choose, they can spend some time and money at the hotel’s restaurants and shops.  But they’ve got to pay to play.  And if they want to play golf on a regular basis, they have to become members.  In other words, TTAC needs both an exclusive members-only section AND a less exclusive “free” section.  

In practice, the new site’s member section would look and work much as it does now.  I hesitate to call the free section “TTAC lite,” but one part of the non-members site would offer mini-reviews, much like the format I designed for Part Two of Jalopnik’s reviews (stars with a few descriptive sentences).  Another, equally important aspect would be comparative data for car shoppers.  At least initially, we’re talking price, options and reliability info.  I’m currently negotiating with a gentleman who collects this kind of data.  He's one with the TTAC brand: complete editorial integrity and total transparency.      

So, TTAC would have a subscription-only “intellectual” side for passionate, witty and informed reviews and rants.  And we’d have a free “practical” side for mini-reviews and useful buying information.  The duality would allow BOTH sides of the site to grow and prosper, as the free side entices visitors into becoming paid subscribers while, at the same time, offering us new and exciting revenue streams (which I can’t discuss at the present time).  Again, I can assure you that neither side would compromise our overarching commitment to honesty, ethics and public service.  It is, after all, our brand.  Without that, The Truth About Cars means nothing.  Is nothing.

So, what do you think?  Is there are a market for what I’ve described?  Would a nuts-and-bolts aspect to TTAC cheapen our literary aspirations?  Do you think we should hold off on turning into a subscription site until the practical side is in place?  At the same time and in any case, how can we increase TTAC’s site traffic?  I’m a writer/editor by nature, but now that I’ve got the posting down to a routine, I’ve got time to market this sucker. (NB: From now on, during the weekdays, I’ll be posting new material first thing in the morning, mid-afternoon and early evening.)  Any help in this area would be most appreciated.  Please leave your comments here.

Meanwhile, I want to take this opportunity to thank TTAC’s writers.  I will be forever grateful for their time, talent, humor and integrity.  Let no one say that the buff books’ have the best writers.  The future of automotive journalism is right here, right now.  Thanks guys, for telling the truth about cars.  Working with you is an honor and a privilege.      

The text after the jump appeared on Karl Brauer's blog "Karl on Cars" on Edmund's Inside Line.  I asked Mr. Brauer for permission to publish it here, without editing or commentary.  Nothing.  (The same response I received when I asked Karl to email me Edmunds' policy on press junkets and public disclosure thereof.) So, under the "fair use" principle, I'm publishing it anyway.  If Edmunds takes TTAC to court, I'll counter-sue for libel and send a note to the IRS asking about the tax implications of junketeering.  If Edmunds sends an email asking TTAC to remove this excerpt, I'll take this post down and publish the email. Anyway, Edmunds may have a million visitors [multiplied exponentially], but at least we have transparency, integrity and a spell-checker. 

Yada Yada Yada… "But one dark side to the "new media" is that anyone with an Internet address can badge themselves an "automotive authority" and subsequently expect the industry (and consumers) to take notice. After eight years at Edmunds I have a keen perspective on how hard it can be to convince the world you aren't just a punk kid with servers in your basement and a desire to get free test drives in new cars. In my case I was a punk kid with LOTS of servers and a desire to get free test drives…but I also wanted to provide accurate consumer information regarding those test drives to over one million visitors a month. That was in 1998, and our monthly visitor numbers are exponentially higher, as is the respect/cooperation we get from the manufacturers.

It wasn't always an easy journey, and I can relate to those publications still trying to achieve legitimacy in this ever-growing space. But I am also annoyed by those publications that break some basic rules of automotive journalism:

1. They target the established guys (like us) with all the usual "you've sold out and are owned by the manufacturers" crap. The most common battle cry is "the manufacturers pay for you to travel somewhere and drive their cars, so you obviously can't write a non-biased report." I think they mistakenly believe that by making such claims they can short-cut the process of becoming established themselves. Hate to rain on your parade guys, but there's only one way to make this trip — provide consistent, high quality automotive journalism over an extended time period (and I'm not talking a weekend, or month or even a year). Do that and the audience will come, followed shortly by respect from the rest of the industry.

2. They go after the manufacturers with false claims of influence to justify their own access to press vehicles. This usually comes in the form of lying about traffic numbers. And yes, I banged on the OEs to get press vehicle access over the years. Hell, I still do, as does everyone else in this space. Trying to get the hottest vehicles as soon as possible is part and parcel of being an automotive journalist. The difference here is that — once you're established — you can accurately claim people will be influenced by your road test content, and thus it's in the OE's best interest to be represented on your site. I've seen plenty of indigant editors out there who refuse to divulge monthly traffic numbers but insist they represent a core automotive Web site. Now why doesn't that behavior pass the smell test? The hypocrysy is also pretty hilarious. Do you think these guys would actually turn down a press event if they once got to the level of actually being invited? Me either.

3. When they don't get their way, they publicly trash said manufacturers and/or established publications. Apparently these guys feel that the best way to inform the automotive consumer/enthusiast is to whine about how nobody pays them any attention. Hey, as an automotive junkie you know what I really want to read about? How about 1,000 words on why manufacturer XYZ is a jerk because they won't give publication PDQ any cars? That's just fascinating stuff, let me tell you. Sure, we may have a First Drive on the Shelby GT500 and Acura RDX going up live tomorrow, but in the end we just can't compete against the ravings of an angry editor at a publication with 800 readers, now can we? Correction — after that latest rant they are down to 728 readers, and dropping fast…

Remember guys — the reader comes first. If you've got a problem with a manufacturer, deal with that manufacturer and spare your audience all the whining. Is there a specific publication I'm talking about here? Yes, there is. But there's no way I'm going to give them any additional publicity, so you'll all have to guess which one. Or maybe you don't care enough to guess (I'm hoping for the latter, as it further suggests a "not-a-moment-too-soon" death for this "illustrious" electronic rag)."

http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/.ee91b8c

Well, here it is.  At the end of the proverbial day, a website saved is a website earned.  I’m sorry I prepared y’all for a quick and brutal transition into paid content, and then dumped a free site on you.  Psych!  Actually, over the last few days I gradually realized there was no way to give this ship a proper shakedown cruise without putting it on-line.  And if it wasn’t 100% ready for prime time, how in the name of St. Anthony could I ask you to pay for it?  Why I’d be no better than GM!  We’ve got plenty of time to make this the world's best automotive website.  

Many of you have emailed in technical suggestions,  which I immediately forwarded to Redwing.  Rest assured that the back end boys are assembling a punch list of all the geeky stuff that passed over the e-transom.  Feel free to continue the technological onslaught.  We’re still working out some functionality issues (e.g. all commentators need to be able to edit their posts quickly and easily).  I’m sure there will be others.  And please let us know quickly if something goes wrong: denied permissions, glitches in function, etc.  You are our eyes and ears (and we yours).  Use the comments button below.  

As for the site’s heart, soul and style, here’s what I figure.  The home page doesn’t have enough posts.  Well, that’s my take.  The old home page had around twenty items in descending chronological order.  Should we return to a lengthy home page or stick with the new shortened version (currently set at ten posts)?  A glitch resulted in some posts having two paragraphs on the home page, before the jump.  I preferred one.  Yes?  Do you miss the old open road animation at the top, or are you OK with a different detail shot every time?  Which buttons are confusing or redundant?  Is there something we missed?  Something you really like? 

Anyway, change is a bitch.  You should see the content management side of this bad boy; it’s got a more complicated back end than the first version of the last gen 7-Series.  (Who are these Word Press people and why do I think the name was originally used for a seventeenth century printing press modified to interrogate suspected witches?)  One thing I’ll be looking for: the car stats.  If they have to be migrated over by hand– a nightmare that will teach me far too much about torque– now might be a good time to modify them to include/exclude more info.  What stats are we missing?  And are there enough rating categories?  Forbes said no a while back.  What say you?  

No, I’m not having an attack of the Bill O’Reillies.  In fact, we’ve gone the other direction.  You may recall that Brock Yates’ work was slated to appear here.  At the sixteenth hour, Mr. Yates developed a cold.  Then he decided he wouldn’t put fingers to plastic on our behalf unless we paid him a significant amount of cash (after agreeing to a percentage).  Then it wasn’t the money, but the fact that the number of posts per month was too great (four) for his busy schedule.  Fair points all, and he’s free to negotiate whatever deal he likes.  But he might have mentioned this when we were scarfing sushi in Boston. I’ve left it that I’ll contact him again in two weeks.  Should I?  Guess which way I'm leaning…  

The really good news: our writers are getting better.   We’ve added some terrific new voices to the choir, and the regulars are sending in some pitch perfect stuff. Elton is about to throw down another gauntlet (should be interesting to see the comments).  A newbie named Jehovah Johnson starts off on Q7 patrol.  Mehta met a Morgan.  Williams thinks car manufacturers have a license to lie. Lieberman is condemned to Fords.  I’m about to Watch GM Die AND get a car to review.  And there’s lots more challenging material to come.  NOW how much would you pay?  Not THAT again…         

To review: BMW has banned The Truth About Cars from its press vehicles because of the "tone and tenor" of the website. Specifically, they objected to the fact that we compared the Subaru B9 Tribeca's front grill to a 'flying vagina,' and considered our review of the Lexus IS350 unnecessarily "harsh." I invited you to email your comments on the ban to dave.buchko@bmwna.com and copy TTAC for publication here. On June 12, the new-look [still-free, more on that later] TTAC will have a commentary option. Meanwhile, here's a sample of the correspondence sent to Mr. Buchko's in-box (so to speak):

"I'm a firm believer in the right to free speech, but unfortunately your so-called "new media" has opened the floodgates for anyone with an opinion, a keyboard and a good repertoire of fifth grade put-downs to set themselves up as being a journalist… You have trumpeted your wounded pride with the self-righteous indignation of a newly ass-whipped schoolyard bully, yet you fail to see that you, not BMW, Subaru or any of your other victims, are the true cause of the problem." Dave Scrivener, Motor Week.

'A year or two ago, I was sort of contemptuous of 'the websites,' assuming that anybody with a PC could do one and what's the point in that? I've learned that the best ones quickly percolate out, and currently my largest, busiest and most voracious single client, and a munificent one it is, is forbesautos.com. Who knew? As for the word, it's one I'd have no hesitation in using in Conde Nast Traveler, if there were an appropriate and amusing reason to do so." Stephan Wilkinson

"I have an allegiance of sorts to TTAC, and your attack on it is, by extension, an attack on me. In the new media world, allegiances can be more difficult to establish than when the conglomeratized corporate media provided the only choices, but those new allegiances are much stronger… I suggest you leave the moral outrage to the political pressure groups. It's not your place to determine what TTAC should write or how it should report it." Glenn Peake

"The word vagina in a TTAC review. This is offensive? To BMW? You mean the company that is in a country that has brothels and sex clubs (ever been to Hamburg, for example) that defy human description?!" Jay Jacobs

"This dispute with BMW doesn't do BMW any credit. The crack about the vagina was wrong but they promised not to do it again. Give them another chance. Free speech can only be encouraged. Many Americans, Canadians, and Germans, gave their lives for it over the last century." John Shields

"Not satisfied with circumscribing automotive content within your market stream, you are now attempting to circumscribe speech and thought. What a sad state of affairs. What an unconstitutional attempt at censorship. What a farce." Mel Zelniker

"I must say you guys are often 'too cute'; trying to hard for a laugh or clever turn of phrase instead of just reviewing carmakers and cars. The flying vagina isn't offensive, it's just stupid; kind of like what you would have written in high school yearbooks. I think you should underreact to BMW and maybe – just maybe – try to write a little more maturely and soberly. Sure you can have fun, but don't try too hard." Ole Eichhorn

"You may believe that TTAC is in poor taste or vulgar, but I assure you, there is nothing more important than trust and your consumers need to believe that BMW is prepared to stand by its products and subject them to the harshest of journalistic inquiry." Geoff Rapoport

"Man, I was this close to spraying coffee all over my keyboard. Our editor-in-chief called the Mercedes-Benz B-Klasse a 'girly car' in a review last fall and MB has, guess what, cut off access to their test fleet in retaliation. These Germans, they still labor under the shadow of Bismarck." Peter Orosz

"Any other apt descriptions you guys would like to ban? Or is it that you object to female anatomies being integrated onto the historic phallic symbolism of the automobile in general? Or do you just secretly titter at naughty words, then wish they weren't in the dictionary for everybody else to see? Cheers, and see you at the next witch-burning-at-the-stake party." Don Nash

"I will only refer to my BMW 330I as my W 330I, because truthfully, the letters BM are objectionable. Furthermore, my girl friend really appreciated this new level of moral maturity when I referred to her, you know, V part, as her grill. And she now refers to my male organ as a tail pipe. Isn't this nicer? Thanks for you helping me to really see the truth and understand the consequences for using inappropriate language." David Marks

"You gotta be kidding me… VAGINA? Take the 530xi wagon off my short list… free speech matters more." Robert Kahn

"I used to drive Bimmers. Then this 'V' thing caught my attention. So I quit driving Bimmers and started driving one of these 'V' things. What am I talking about? My new Vette, of course. What did you think I was talking about?" Lance E Shaffer

Last week, BMW flackmeister Dave Buchko banned The Truth About Cars from access to BMW and MINI press vehicles. Mr. Buchko wanted to be clear: the company was not responding to TTAC's criticisms of its products. The decision represented "a general concern about the tone and tenor of the site." More specifically, BMW objected to my characterization of the Subaru Tribeca's grill treatment as a flying vagina and our "inappropriately harsh" review of the Lexus IS350. So, BMW doesn't mind us calling the new M5's shifter the world's worst gearbox, but we can't mention female anatomy or wail on their opponent. Are you getting this?

I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to launching a retaliatory campaign based on our right to call it like we see it. You know: 'BMW can't handle The Truth!' But how do you fight a company that cuts you off from its press fleet because its corporate leaders object to the word vagina, and the fact that we preferred their products to their competitors'? Following Mr. Buchko into the rabbit hole, I tried to negotiate a solution to this bizarre situation. During our most recent phone call, I told Mr. Buchko we wouldn't use the words "vagina, penis or testicles" in any future posts and [almost] promised to shower Lexus with love the next time 'round.

No deal. The best Mr. Buchko could offer: BMW would "monitor the site" and "get back to us." I rejected the non-offer and, well, vagina. While I do not for one moment suggest that BMW has any obligation to provide The Truth About Cars (or anyone else) with press cars, these guys are both arrogant and insane. That fact was pretty obvious before the ban– when Mr. Buchko gave me a vigorous tongue-lashing for suggesting that iDrive was the worst thing to ever happen to a BMW (this was pre-M5). But now, by banning us over word choice and a Lexus review, BMW has conclusively proved that they don't understand PR, the new media or their customers.

Hold that thought. What's wrong with the word vagina? It's not one of the seven words you can't say on TV; it's a perfectly acceptable term for a female's primary sexual organs. And what's wrong with comparing the grill treatment of the Subaru B9 Tribeca to a flying vagina? Ever since Sigmund Freud's "Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie" met Jaguar's E-Type, journalists have called sports cars phallic symbols. Is the BMW organization so repressed and patriarchal that it can't tolerate the mere mention of female genitalia? The fact that Buchko couldn't bring himself to say the word 'vagina' indictates the full extent of the roundel's psycho-sexual problems.

C'mon guys, the vagina is ground zero for every human that's ever walked planet Earth. It's a place of beauty and pleasure for billions of people. [FYI: Hawaiian legend contains a story about a flying vagina or 'kohe lele."] I reckon the Subaru B9 Tribeca should fly its vagina with pride. And anyway, you'd think that BMW has more important things to do than obsess– for ten months– about a sexual reference on a relatively obscure website. Oh wait; TTAC published the Lexus IS350 review during this interregnum (on December '05). And what was our unpardonable sin there? Dunno. The Lexus review applied the same level of critical examination to the IS350 that we'd previously and subsequently applied to BMW's graciously-loaned press cars: the M5, 325ix Sports Wagon, 325i, 750i, M3CS, 645i Coupe, 645ci Convertible and 530i.

I find it inconceivable that a German car manufacturer would risk public disapproval to punish a website for using a "bad word" and protect their arch rivals. [Note: Toyota didn't object to the IS350 review, and continues to provide TTAC with press cars.] In fact, if you want a textbook example of how not to run a PR department, this is it. BMW is now on record as the company that freaks-out at the word "vagina"– inviting both ridicule and indignation from their highly-educated core clientele. The ban also reveals BMW as wimpy competitors, or paternalistic saps. Does anyone seriously think Toyota would return this unsolicited favor?

This thing is three kinds of stupid. In a free country, BMW can't stop a website from publishing the word "vagina," criticizing whomever it pleases and finding other ways to get behind the wheel of one of their products. This we will do. And rest assured that we will not review these cars any more harshly than we did before the ban. The Truth About Cars will not compromise its basic principles for anyone, ever. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you a simple question: do you feel comfortable doing business with a company that behaves this way? Please send your answer in an email to <a xhref='mailto:dave.buchko@bmwna.com'>dave.buchko@bmwna.com</a>. CC us here, and we'll publish the most entertaining and informative examples.

Last Tuesday, a man named John E Packowski sent me an email: 'Effective immediately, The San Francisco Chronicle will no longer be using your automotive columns.' I'd never heard of the Chronicle's Creative Director. But I was hardly mystified by Mr. Packowski's motivation. The week previous, the paper ran my review of the Subaru B9 Tribeca.

I'm not sure if the Chronicle removed my description of the SUV's front end as a 'flying vagina' (the editors ignore my request for a copy of the published review), but even without it my analysis of the B9 was not bound to please its manufacturer. The section's editor, Mike Berry, refused to clarify the exact cause of my summary dismissal. But a colleague let it be known that a Subaru-scented shit storm had hit the department responsible for my employment. The paper caved.

Initially, I wasn't bothered by the Chronicle's lack of editorial backbone. I'd had a terrific run. For three-and-a-half years, the Chronicle printed my work without significant alteration. Sure, Berry had spiked a few of the more 'extreme' reviews. But I thought it the price of doing business. Considering the no-holds-barred nature of my output, I admired the paper's courage. No other US newspaper will agree to publish my car reviews. Not one. So I was thankful for the opportunity to find an audience, for however long it lasted.

And then I remembered that Mr. Berry had spiked the Subaru B9 review before he left for vacation. During his absence, fellow editor Mike Ansaldo had decided to run it. Then I got fired. This did not strike me as fair, honorable or just. The paper had decided to expose their readers to a negative review, and I, not them, had paid the price. Even worse, no one at the paper is willing to discuss what had happened, or why. Perhaps the Chronicle doesn't wish itself revealed as willing to jettison its editorial independence in the face of advertisers' ire. Perhaps there are legal reasons. In any case, all I want is the truth. This they can not– will not– provide.

Of course, the truth is relative. Or so automotive manufacturers and their minions would have us believe. In fact, the Subaru B9 Tribeca is both subjectively (to the best of my knowledge and experience) and empirically a dreadful machine that besmirches the reputation of its manufacturer. Sure, the B9 handles well. The review pointed this out. But to suggest that it's an SUV worthy of its manufacturer's hype ('The end of the SUV as we know it' and 'The ideal balance of power and refinement') is to become a co-conspirator in Subaru's attempts to mislead the public.

And here's the thing: I believe the media in general, and newspapers in particular, have an obligation to tell the truth about cars. You know all those puff pieces that fill up the odd blank spot in every single automotive section in this great country of ours? Does it ever occur to the propagators of these gutless 'reviews' that a car is the average consumer's second most expensive purchase? To operate under the principle that all cars are wonderful in their own special way is to sacrifice readers' direct financial interests for the paper's short term monetary gain. Chicken and egg though it might be– readers attract advertisers who pay for copy to attract readers– Bob Dylan was right. You gotta serve somebody. Clearly, the mainstream automotive media has made its choice.

And that's why so many car enthusiasts have turned to the web. Other than Dan Neil at the Los Angeles Times, there are no print journalists ready, willing and able to directly challenge the auto manufacturers' influence with the plain, unvarnished truth (including the writers found in the happy clappy buff books). Car lovers yearn for the truth about cars. Sites like www.jalopnik.com are dedicated to providing it. And that's why the mainstream press' cozy little Boys' Club is doomed.

But we are keenly aware that the pursuit of the truth is becoming increasingly difficult. I've been personally blacklisted by three major manufacturers, denied access to their press cars. Invitations to product previews and launches are notable by their absence. On the revenue side, potential advertisers have flat out stated that they are unwilling to accept our editorial independence.

Never mind. I will continue to publish the truth about cars as long as I can afford to do so. If test vehicles disappear completely, I'll write editorials. To those of you who support this website's ambitions, I can't thank you enough. To those of you who would punish us for our zeal, a word of warning. Whether we stand or fall, the truth will out.

[jpackowski@sfchronicle.com]

You may have noticed that TTAC hasn't been maintaining its usual fecundity. That's 'cause we're busy hanging with the homies during the challenging camp – school hiatus, and trying to earn a crust. (If you're suffering sarcasm withdrawl, please note that Robert Farago's reviews now appear on a weekly basis on www.jalopnik.com and in the ghetto known as 'User Reviews' on www.automotive.com. Same cars, different jokes.) Meanwhile…

TTAC has recently been voted 'Best of the Web' by Forbes magazine (official watermark to follow). We've also crested the 3k per day visitor ratio, and have a stunning four minute per visitor hang time. We'd love to expand our coverage in all directions, but we need cash money to do so. We're looking for a single advertiser to help us grow. Someone with vision, money, respect for our editorial independence, money, a cool-looking ad and money. Interested parties please apply by email to robertfarago@hotmail.com. Thanks.