At motor trend every single discussion can be summed up in two lines:

“yer a retard for buying domestic”

“yer a terrorist and hate yer country if you don’t buy domestic”

No matter the topic it always boils down to those two points.

The no flaming policy was what got me to this site. But the comical, cynical reviews/editorials/news is what kept me here.

So I say, keep up the good work.

To the people who don’t like DW’s and would like to see their demise: don’t read them. Simple. It would be interesting to go back to the various DW’s and see the number of times the DW naysayers have commented on them.

To be a fan of TTAC, I think you need to have an open mind, have a strong constitution, be able to show restraint and civility when commenting, and, if you’re a fan of a particular make, not take criticism of that make personally.

Nah. Just look what happens when a car wreck happens on the highway. Everyone slows down to ‘rubberneck.’

A one star review is the journalistic equivalent. I wouldn’t buy one of these cars. But I can’t look away from the carnage…

For example, no one has really explained why a car company can’t drop a dealer. Yet it is accepted as gospel.

To people not in the industry, a little learnin’ will go a long ways.

I see no sharks being jumped around here (you’ve wisely left that to the Fonz…)

Considering the passions stimulated on both sides pro- and anti-domestic, I think you do a fine job of letting everyone vent their side, but keeping a good signal-to-noise ratio. I often only read articles to savour the comments they provoke.

And I think you continue to do a great job on both the news and gossip side (which seem to be the bread and butter of maintaining freshness).

Well, then GM and Bob Lutz need to stop displaying their ignorance, and the articles would stop. Job done.

“That and the eloquent and relevant editorials (I think Ford Death Watch 4 had a very memorable conclusion that stang FoMoCo like a beyotch)”

Where is FDW #4? It’s missing from the archive.

I continue to read the site only because there are a few interesting news stories, but the editorial content is always pretty much the same – relentless cynicism masked as insightful comment.

Maybe a few fewer death watch series. We know those guys are screwed…

I love the idea of the ‘vintage’ road tests although I appreciate they might not be easy to pull off.

Do you get many submissions from readers?

I’ve been here since GM Death Watch #1. And which is the first website I hit everyday? Yep, TTAC. Period.

Great post. I’ll take it to heart. I’m as guilty as anyone of re-hashing things and being repetitive. I’ll try to stay out of the rut.

What I like most about TTAC is the editorials and the comments (comments on everything, not just editorials). It’s the insight and intelligence of the other posters that keeps me coming back – even if I happen to disagree with someone.

I like the discussions of the industry. Most auto related web sites are about individual cars or about being a fanboy for a particular make. Where else could there be a lengthy discussion of automobile branding?

That said, it wouldn’t hurt to supplement the death watch series with more positive articles about what the industry players are doing right.

I’m largely indifferent to the news section. I’ll comment on some items, but often I just skip right over them. As others have suggested, fewer news items of greater interest would be a good move.

Reviews for me are a mixed bag. I like the reviews I’ve read, but I won’t usually read about any car that I’d never buy, (or never be ableto buy).

If I were to nitpick…
More reviews would be better.
Some daze, the quantity of ‘news’ posts is a smidgel much. Perhaps news posts could be filtered/categorized?

But don’t ask me how, I’m just a lame critic…

You see that as a problem, I see that as an advantage. Mainstream media is just that, mainstream. And they are mainstream for a reason, that they write what the industry wants them to do. Think of them as embedded journalists, embedded in pr-spin. Covering a war on your own is expensive, dangerous and definitively no holds barred. But that is the only way to go, to cut trough all industry bullshit to cover the truth.

TTAC as an idea will never be accepted by the industry. And that’s good. Because when it is, it means that TTAC has lost its edge. Journalistic credibility is not judged by the industry or media, but by the readers. At the end of the day, what is credible is at the hands of the viewing public. And being the one voice for reason in a sea of mediocracy, TTAC are to my knowledge, the only watershed I have seen on the issue. And as Mr Farago said:

“This is no bad thing. If we seem overly-harsh, it’s because we’re strong medicine. If not us, who?”

So, tell me: Is there any other place were issues like this can be seen? Show me, because I wanna know, so I can go there and read it. To my mind, journalistic credibility and integrity can be clarified in the common credo: “Publish, or be damned.”

TTAC publishes, and damn those who don’t…

Alex,

I couldn’t disagree with you more. One of the chief reasons I am a regular to this site is because of the respectful nature of the commentators. It seems to me that most of us are not gleeful whatsoever at Detroit’s demise. I personally want to see the D3 succeed and come out of this mess as world-class automakers, though I doubt that will happen. While there is some vulgarity, it by no means dominates the content. Most other automotive web sites and forums are filled of unchecked insults and derision of writers and other commentators. Never in TTAC do you hear:

“If U like Ford, than your a stupid retard”

Several times, other commentators have disagreed with my points, and I have had no personal beef with them because of that. Several times I have been corrected for misstating a fact or figure, but never with any malice or ill-willed insults.

Far from the junior high attitude, I equate The Truth About Cars to an educated group of adults having a round of drinks together. There are disagreements, a bit of cynicism and the occasional off-colored laugh, but for the most part, it is a respectful exchange of ideas. If you have any doubt of this, simply re-read the posts above.

But in NO way do I believe TTAC has “jumped the shark”, although I respect Ms. Pucrik’s frequent and often witty contributions.

Your comment “You see the same arguments repeated ad infinitum” could not ring truer.

I have recently come to the same conclusion and will be only be posting comments that add something new —very hard to do given my passion on certain topics…but the right thing to do for me and this site….who the hell wants to hear me blather about the same thing over and over.

Robert—-My suggestion would be to bag the Deathwatch series—-I really do not think it serves any real purpose now. It was a great idea that has gotten played out by the same old arguements, comments, and cynicism. The absolute number of comments has decreased—-but more importantly the quality of comments has decreased over the past few months. Net, the series has become rather banal….

I think TTAC is suffering from a phenomenon that is pretty much common to any narrowly focused website: eventually everything gets repeated enough that some readers are turned off. Web forums are a great example. I have participated in numerous web forums over the years, some very actively, yet without exception I have lost interest in all of them. The discussions remain the same, only the names have changed. (This is why I think a forum at TTAC is a bad move.)

The comments section at TTAC behaves much like a web forum, save for the fact that only the site’s masters can start the threads. You see the same arguments repeated ad infinitum. Every reader has a threshold above which time spent at any one site delivers rapidly diminishing returns. Frankly, I’ve passed mine, and find myself coming to TTAC less often as a result. I still enjoy it, but I am more selective on which news items I read. While before I would strive not to miss news items, I no longer care if I miss a couple days worth. In that sense, TTAC has jumped my shark.

This is the danger TTAC runs. When regular readers come to the site already knowing what they are going to read, the only ones that stick around are the very opinionated types that enjoy re-hashing the same arguments over, and over, and over… On a web forum this usually results in a poor signal-to-noise ration and an ensuing death spiral that sees a constant turn over of posters.

Another issue for TTAC: until you gain some journalistic credibility with the auto industry you are really just an opinion site (not that there is anything wrong with that, but opinions are a dime a dozen). Unfortunately, the industry doesn’t take kindly to “no holds barred” coverage, so that credibility will be hard to come by. I look forward to the day when TTAC can report its own news, rather than just blogging other sources.

Some suggestions:
- Reduce news coverage. Limit to, say, 5-6 important items per day. Try to find items with a unique angle. If an item is similar to one recently blogged, ignore it. Same sh*t different day gets boring.
- From the “easier said than done” file: more reviews. This is where TTAC can truly deliver value to the reader and generate original content that can better engage readers in fresh dialogue.
- Allow reviews to go up to 2 pages. Make more of a review than a “driving impression” as R&T calls them.
- Consider disabling comments on some items. It doesn’t take a genius to suss out which items are likely to generate the same old discussion.
- Add some technical articles (I’m looking at mech eng. Sajeev here). [How about an article about what happened to the CVT? Ten years ago I was reading articles about the promise of CVTs and how they would revolutionize transmissions. Today we have a handful of them, nobody likes them, and the Taurus (nee Five Hundred) has dropped it in favour of a slushbox. What got between promise and reality?]

I could probably write more, but I gotta get back to work!

Last things first…

A second sore spot is the cynical nature of the news blog. While some cynicism is good (especially towards government and politicians), constant cynicism towards what various automakers are doing with their product is getting tiresome. Even Toyota gets some of this cynical treatment, but it’s mostly directed at the domestics. How about just reporting the news item and let the audience make comments whether cycnical or not?

The writers for this site strive to tell the truth. They attempt to separate what they’re told and what they perceive to be “real.” There’s no question: the resulting cynicism informs much of their thinking. But as Ben Franklin correctly surmised, it’s better to be a cynic and pleasantly surprised than an optimist and constantly disappointed. And thanks for recognizing that we are, as a group, equal opportunity cynics.

Next…

I want to add to what Alex said. We are very aware of the weaknesses (and weak product) that the domestics have. But the “pile on” doesn’t help. One of the low points for me was the review of the Pontiac Grand Prix, a car that is on it’s way out of production and does not reflect the way that GM is going or at all indiciative of it’s more recent products. It seemed to me like you were picking on the neighborhood retarded kid for the pure joy of it.

I consider it a misfortune that the “pile on” isn’t helping. The Grand Prix may be going to that great junkyard in the sky, but it hasn’t gone yet. Not only is it fair to warn potential buyers that it blows, but it helps GM to remind them that they should never build that kind of car again. Or, maybe, fix it. Or if not the Grand Prix, then the Cobalt. Or the Aveo. Or…

Can you see what I’m trying to do here? TTAC’s job is to tell the truth about cars. This is no bad thing. If we seem overly-harsh, it’s because we’re strong medicine. If not us, who?

Domestic Hearse:

You seem to think that A) TTAC is a monolithic enterprise with a single perspective and B) “we” don’t believe in, for the lack of a better term, navel gazing. Neither of these assertions is correct.

No one save flamers (of the site, its authors or fellow commentators) is discouraged from posting here. If you disagree with anything on this site, you are free to post a reply or write an editorial.

The reason we don’t believe Chrysler’s market research is because of its cars. By thy deeds they shall be known. And there is nothing more cynical than soliciting advise and then intentionally, willfully and arrogantly ignoring it.