mmarshall

It's still the same coffee and drinks. The only difference now is that, usually, instead of paper copies, we're in front of a PC or Smartphone instead. And, of course, those who are retired often have more time for it.

PROV8

I’m retired and do have time to read, but, as you said, I end up reading more on my computer more than in paper publications. I do wish newspapers had more and better auto stories.

While newspapers aren’t as relevant today as when this thread started, the concern voiced in an older post about non-critical newspaper automotive articles appearing in classified and advertising special sections is still valid. Expecting a critical vehicle review or a head-to-head comparison in an advertising section is about as realistic as an Ab Blaster infomercial pointing out that the device’s results won’t show on people with flabby bellies. I mainly read them to find out what’s new on the market. I don’t, however, blame the newspaper advertising divisions or the writers (who are highly edited). As previously said, generating ad revenue, and not balanced auto reviews, is advertising’s reason to exist.

The real question is: Why doesn’t the news side of more newspapers, which is responsible for delivering real information, provide its readers with automotive reviews – maybe in the business section or online?

An L.A. Times incident, involving Pulitzer Prize-winning auto journalist Dan Neil (Another top writer, who now writes for the Wall Street Journal), pretty much answers the question of why many papers don’t take the chance. In reaction to negative comments made by Neil, General Motors pulled its ads.

http://intuitive.com/general_motors_miffed_at_la_times_review_pulls_all_advertising.html

That was about a decade ago, and the number of auto ads available to pull has greatly dwindled (remember when classified sections used to be huge?). With newspapers falling on hard times, scratching and clawing to earn every penny they can, they can’t afford to offend advertisers.

“Buff books” also are guilty of caving in to advertising pressure -- especially in terms of the vehicles selected to review, those featured on the cover and awards given to non-deserving vehicles. My all-time favorite is the Chevy Citation receiving the 1980 Motor Trend Car of the Year award.

Also, Tim Spell, the “local” newspaper writer mentioned in that older post, isn’t so local to Houston. Spell actually is a long-time nationally published writer. His columns have appeared over the years in the San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, SFGate online and national auto-enthusiast magazines. I saw his TV show on a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii. Spell is a superb feature writer with a good eye for historical topics. He's an experienced writer, and among the best of the field. His work has been honored multiple times by the International Automotive Media Awards as “Best of Newspapers”.

http://www.iamc-isvp.org/pdfs/iamc2008awds.pdf

Toys4RJill

I agree with you that times are changing but I also don't completely agree that short attention spans are always the cause.

In the case of auto reviews, I find that too many articles have redundant info on stuff like HP, tq, and MPG ratings that do not require paragraphs to explain. That stuff is all too often readily available on a Google Search or it can be listed in a small side bar. Slalom stuff is useless as well.

Just get to the point and get to it quick or else the review is useless to me. A simple point form of the pros and cons is usually enough.

Also, most press or auto photos are horrible. They do not have enough close ups to see what I want to see. Autoblog used to be really good at photos but forums like this when someone posts their close ups is more valuable to me.

Not cars, but film reviews IMO are useless now, I just look at the Rotten Tomatoes score and that will usually determine if I want to watch the movie or not. Only Roger Ebert was worth reading.

mmarshall

Newspaper auto reviews are some of the worst I've seen...even worse than mine LOL. It seems like they usually do one of two things...either talk about their emotions rather than the vehicle itself, or just sugar-coat everything on the car and don't really have any negative things to point out.....which is B.S., because EVERY vehicle has good AND bad points....even to its most dedicated fanboys.

Yep...tell me about it. I owned a 1980 Citation. Wonderful IDEA and execution. Awful POS of a car. But, back then, to be honest, almost everything designed by American-brand companies was filled with defects and poor engineering. Some Chrysler products were as bad or worse.

PROV8

How true. I guess if negatives were included that offended an advertiser, the writer and editor would be fired.


Even Lexus vehicles? Tell me it ain't so!


I owned one, too. And I'm only admitting it because you did. It was constantly in the shop, and I couldn't keep front tires on it. There were some really terrible cars roaming the roads back then.

mmarshall

Now you see one of the reasons why I never joined the auto press....or wanted to.

Even a new LS....though the LS, admittedly, is such an excellent car that it has very few really significant negatives. Same with the new Hyundai 5.0L Genesis....one of the few minuses being that Hyundai won't sell the 5.0L AWD version here in the U.S. because of gas-mileage concerns.




I don't mind admitting I owned several new-car lemons in my lifetime....mostly from that time period (late 70s/early 80s). Like many other car owners from back then, I learned from experience. So, apparently, did you.


As bad as the Citation was, the competing Chrysler K-cars were, IMO, as bad or worse.....but in a different way. They didn't suffer as many catastrophic major engine/transmission/brake failures from poor engineering as the GM X-Body cars (Citation, Phoenix, Omega, Skylark) did. Their problem was that the entire car felt like (and sounded like, in squeaks/creaks/rattles) that everything was working loose, from Day One, the moment you first drove it home from the dealership. Almost nothing seemed solidly attached.....but, in general, they didn't leave you stranded out on the road as much as the catastrophic failures did in the GM X-bodies.

BTW, later in the decade, we were to see more or less the same level of poor quality control/engineering in the Yugo and Hyundai Excel.

PROV8

Let's see . . . at the sacrifice of a little integrity and "accidently" forgetting to include a car's flaws in a story, you could enjoy test driving some of the world's greatest cars. It's something to think about . . .


If I were given an assignment to write an attention-grabbing car review, the last car I'd want to see in line for testing is an LS. It's a wonderful car, but lacks the character needed to write a meaty review. It's superb, maybe near perfect -- but boring.

Yes, they were. My brother had a really awful Dodge Aries station wagon.

Toys4RJill

The LS460 from 07-today has its flaws. Its nowhere near prefect. Pre-facelift the interior was seriously dated and the styling was horribly bland. This was also fixed in the 13 refresh.

The idiots at CR gave it a 99? WTF

If I recall, previous LS models would routinely finished at the top of comparison test while the 07 model struggled with last place or almost last place results. The earlier LS models set the tone for the class and was the benchmark, that certainly changed in 07.

There is also the failure of acceptance of the LS600h which was supposed to be a high valued V12/W12 alternative.

Overall, I absolutely love, love, love the LS460 from 13 onward, the look is outstanding, the power and the pretige is good. But it certainly not the leader of the class like it once was.

mmarshall

If you love the new LS so much, then why complain that CR also likes it? It is indeed an excellent luxury car, though the new Mercedes S550 has admittedly caught up to it or surpassed it in some areas.....for a higher price.

MattyG

While we can always admire the latest greatest breaking news about the auto world - we also know that so-called "automotive journalists" are really auto reviewers and writers. There's a difference.

There was a time that you never heard "journalist" and "automobile" in the same sentence unless it involved the death of a celebrity or a politician. That was journalism.

Somewhere along the line, something odd happened... some auto reviewers and writers decided to get into a symbiotic relationship with the car manufacturers whose products they reviewed and suddenly wanted to get more respect by calling themselves "journalists", "reporters" etc.

Have any auto "journalists" been the ones who broke the stories about ignition recalls or airbag recalls? Or exploding gas tanks? Who does the grunt work?

Does it take real journalists to step in and work the story and do true reporting because they don't have a favor owed for a free vehicle with free gas and airfare and accommodation?

And it's gotten worse. The typical car review in a major publication wants you to know the options, leather, the color of the vehicle and its numerous option packages. Basically what a sales person will happily do for you in a dealership. It's all put up front for several paragraphs.

Ask any of these car reviewers if they own the vehicle in question and it could be a 50/50 result. Notice there is rarely a critical remark about the brand's history etc. Hence you don't want to get "blacklisted" by the manufacturer for making critical remarks.

And that is why I think people have tuned out in some ways and gone to secondary sources for a more broad spectrum survey of what a vehicle is in the real world.

-J-P-L-

The thing with many, if not most, auto journalist is their tendency to put down or not appreciate the real world needs and desires of buyers. That's a thing that has always turned me off a bit. I can understand a lot of it is because it is enthusiast driven and car excitement is what they are after.

I'll use the popular Jeremy Clarkson as a prime example. I loved to watch Top Gear as it was always funny and entertaining but I disagreed with much of Clarkson's opinions about cars in general. The thing about a guy like him is he only likes a a few types of cars. Generally only high end ones with the only lower end ones he likes being something like a GTI. The car has to be some high performance machine of some sort. Even when it comes to anything suitable for a family. It has to be a Land Rover or some other high end sporty SUV.

I'd rather tune in to Top Gear and see a real comparison of the mid size family sedan class or SUV class, etc... Sure it's fun to watch a Lambo take to the track but it's all fantasy. They did do an episode here and there on normal cars and it was typically a bash fest.

If you made a list of the 75 best selling cars in America, Clarkson would likely hate all but a couple as his tastes totally clash with American buyers. Hates cars like Camry's/Accords. Hates full size P/U's. Hates regular SUV's like Explorers or Highlander types. Hates compact SUVs too. Hates anything hybrid. And so on. Everything that 90% of Americans plumps down real money for.

I, on the other hand, like every class of car. Literally. Cheap sub-compacts to exotics and everything in between. I just love cars and appreciate everything for what it is intended to be. Guys like Clarkson can't look at a utilitarian vehicle and see it for that purpose. Since he can't drift in it, it's no good.

So looking at auto journalists as a whole, the majority judge cars first and foremost on driving dynamics/performance as the #1 priority. Even if it's a minivan. All the while, driving dynamics is down on the list for a majority of buyers. More important factors include styling, reliability record, interior comfort/function, price/value.... A quick look at the best selling cars proves that "fun to drive" isn't the deciding factor in car purchases. Yet, auto journalists almost always place the drivers car #1 in comparisons. It's easy to do when you're not the one buying the car.

PROV8

You guys have excellent insight regarding the problems with automotive "journalism."

I think most are very close with the manufacturers. Some writers border on being in the marketing business.

That's spot on. Most automotive writers' tastes don't reflect that of the average buyer.

mmarshall

Spot-on. Couldn't have said it better myself. Agree on all points. The huge (and interesting) world of automobiles, crossovers, and trucks, from 10-15K econoboxes to six-figure luxury and exotic models, is a LOT more than just simple power, handling, and braking. Much of the auto press, though (not all), would have one believing otherwise. That's one reason, though, why I like John Davis (who I casually know) and the The Motorweek TV show and videos. They aren't like much of the sport-oriented auto press....and objectively test the whole spectrum of vehicles, though sometimes the short length of their videos forces somewhat abbreviated reviews that don't fully describe the car stem to stern.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

using clarkson to make your point is a stretch as he is an entertainer and not a journalist. he loves fast/crazy cars because everything else is 'boring' to him. which would be the case i expect if any of us did it day in and out. but regardless, he's a sensationalist, controversial guy who happens to be testing cars but usually for him it's about a story... and as you say, he tests vehicles almost no one will ever own or maybe even see, but it's fun to watch!

you can watch motorweek instead, but i now find their reviews to be AWFUL, seemingly comparing EVERYTHING to some 'practical' benchmark they have, although they do test exotics once in a while, but you see them driving them at 50mph down a road, or still sensibly on a track, and john davis just sounds like a school teacher.

auto 'journalism' is pretty much dead, killed by youtube and blogs and the fact that advertisers just won't advertise if their vehicle is not going to be reviewed favorably.

Lil4X

Looking back over ten years on this thread, it's clear that the quality of writing has slipped badly as most automotive essays now appear in electronic formats rather than inked on dead trees. It's more about flash than soul anymore. Clarkson's curmudgeonly grousing about the lack of performance in sub-$100K cars doesn't fit the real world. Sure it's entertaining, but it's also unrealistic. Where can you go (other than TG's runways) to burn the tires off an AMG coupe and not get a life sentence for mayhem and irresponsibility in the real world? Of course, then he complains about the fact that he managed to shred a grand's worth of rubber in a couple laps. Uh, wasn't that YOUR foot on the accelerator? Clarkson's funny, but his brand of "journalism" is juvenile at best . . . and has worn as thin as a set of Pirellis under his leaden boot.

While all-out automotive mayhem may have its place as entertainment, it shouldn't substitute for clear analysis of what's available to ordinary people - those of us who don't have seven-figure incomes. National Geographic was once compared to Playboy as showing pictures of all those beautiful places you'd realistically never have the opportunity to visit. I think that a large part of automotive "journalism as entertainment" falls into the same category. The problem with straight automotive reviews is that they are too often like reading Consumer Reports - about as dry as a bowl of dry shredded wheat . . . and just as entertaining.

I'm sorry that the real literary lions of automotive journalism are gone. Generations of automotive enthusiasts to come will miss those like Purdy, D.E. Davis, Setright, McCluggage, even Brock Yates. Just reading their columns you got the distinct whiff of Castrol and rubber, your hair ruffled by the breeze over the windshield as your ears were assaulted by the particular yowl of a twin-cam on the overrun. A writer who can put YOU in the driver's seat and let you experience the sensations of a sporting drive through the damp chill of a summer morning on country lanes dappled with light and shade - that's a journalist in my book. The rest are copywriters.