A couple of days ago, we published an editorial taking English auto scribe James May to task for flaming American cars. For this, we were flamed. Despite TTAC’s blanket ban on comments that diss the website, and our ban on [off topic] comments questioning our editorial stance or style, many of you cried foul. How could Mr. Swanson accuse a British writer of an anti-American car bias when TTAC [obviously] shared this same prejudice? After damping down the flames of perceived hypocrisy, I promised to provide offended readers a place to fire at will. And here it is.
Longtime visitors will know TTAC’s fought the bias battle before. From the very first GM Death Watch, any and all criticism of GM or GM products used to ignite a conflagration of condemnation. The flames soon spread to our coverage of Ford and Chrysler. For several years, TTAC was consistently and persistently attacked as a fundamentally anti-American website. We were considered the enemy within.
Many commentators felt compelled to vent their ire at our [perceived] anti-American bias at the bottom of any editorial that even touched on the subject of a domestic automaker or domestic car. When they were warned to make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators; more than a few penned expletive-laden emails accusing me of Stalinist censorship. Not to mention conjecture about sexual relations with farm animals, doubts about my patriotism and good old-fashioned death threats.
As The Big 2.8’s troubles have become evident to all but the most blinkered observers, the majority of our readers have begun to appreciate the fact that TTAC’s take on the American automotive industry isn’t entirely divorced from reality. Of course, our policy of permanently banning flamers has also quieted this little corner of cyberspace. In any case, by and large, our domestic-oriented editorials and car reviews are no longer greeted with a not-so-stately line of flame throwers.
I mustard mitt I was a bit surprised when our Mr. Swanson's analysis of Mr. May's editorial reignited charges of hypocrisy and anti-American bias. Surprised, but not concerned. As I said, we’ve been here before. And at the risk of repeating myself, I’ll repeat myself: TTAC does not have an anti-American car or automaker bias.
Yes, a great deal of our coverage focuses on the foibles and failures of The Big 2.8. For this I make no apologies. The Decline and Fall of Detroit is arguably the most important automotive story of our time. While the media coverage of unfolding events has been generally excellent, I’ve attempted to write, commission and publish articles that look at the lay of the land that little bit harder. That dig that little bit deeper for the truth.
At the same time, it should be noted that TTAC hasn’t spared non-domestic automakers the same scrutiny. We’ve taken Toyota to task for greenwashing, lambasted Lexus for ill-advised line extensions, mocked Mercedes for creating Maybach, bashed BMW for bad branding, and so on. In my more egocentric moments, I like to think that TTAC as the conscience of an industry. The ENTIRE industry: American, transplanted and foreign.
It’s also worth mentioning that TTAC is a catholic (small c) website. We invite submissions from anyone who cares to tap plastic on our behalf. We do not dictate the writer’s editorial perspective, nor reject their work on that basis. There is no “house line” on any given issue. There are enough counterpoint editorials to back up the assertion that we genuinely enjoy genuine debate. And, lest we forget, our comments section is a playground for civilized dissent.
That said, yes, we are a group of like-minded people. Just as CBS' newsroom contains more liberals than a Hollywood madam's black book, the people who regularly write for TTAC share certain values, experiences, perspectives and abilities. But one thing they do NOT share is a bias against American automakers or their products per se.
Peruse our archives for reviews of American cars and you’ll find plenty of praise. Read our reviews of non-domestically owned or produced makes and models, and you’ll see plenty of criticism. NOBODY gets a free ride at TTAC. The fact that so many American cars take it on the chin hereabouts says everything about the cars, and little about our editorial preconceptions.
So why did Mr. Swanson stick it to Mr. May if “we” generally agree about the relative quality of American (i.e. GM, Ford and Chrysler) cars? Because May was saying all American cars suck. Mr. Swanson felt that the criticism was based on anti-Americanism, rather than carefully calculated analysis. More importantly, Mr. Swanson believed it was untrue. As long as I’m at the helm of this website, I will continue to publish work that attempts to expose the truth, regardless of the consequences.
153 Comments on “Is The Truth About Cars Unfair, Anti-American, Both or Neither?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Thanks, Robert. Good Editorial
I've always felt that TTAC would be ready to jump up and cheer for the American brands if they were able to turn the tides and build products that consumers are eager to buy. The site is just critical, not anti-anything.
May was anti-American and needed to be called on it.
Mr Farago,
I know I’m the last person you want to hear from, but here goes.
Your editorial, for me, missed the point. I, personally, was angry because the topic span out of control and turned into a flame-fest about “how the Brits could be so snobby when they don’t have car industry of their own. Plus their teeth and food are bad”. The whole thing denigrated into a “Who’s worse, UK or US?” Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is juvenile and pointless. Mr Swanson mentioned his uncle dying for Mr May’s right for freedom of speech (because NO British, French, Indians, Australians, Canadians fought! There’s a reason why it was called a WORLD war), But when Mr May used his “free” speech to criticise some cars (and a bit more fatuously American food) Mr Swanson chided him for it. Apparently, there are some limits to freedom of speech (Thank you President Bush, for that one!).
At very few instances, did anyone say “You know what, maybe these cars are terrible, what should be done about it?”. Is that not the reason, we have GM/Ford/Chrysler death/suicide watches? It’s clear that american don’t want american cars, so why should we scold Mr May for pointing that out? Because, the only people who can criticise the American car industry are americans? No, I believe people are more intelligent here, than that. I don’t doubt that TTAC bashes everyone equally. But let’s stick to the cars which suck, not people. The name of this site is “The Truth About Cars” not “The Truth About People”.
I suppose what upset me, was seeing a great site and a great bunch of people reduced to a childish “yo’ momma” style slanging match, when we’re all here for one reason:
The love of cars.
That’s why we’re here. If you want to sort out your personal problem with a particular race of people, go to the U.N. You want to talk intelligently about cars, be they British (Aston Martin) Japanese (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi), American (Ford, GM, Chrysler) or German (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VW) then come to TTAC.
And at the end of the day at least 1/2 of the car buying public in the USA will NOT buy a vehicle built or sold by GM, Ford, and Chysler.
i have never found the editorials to be anti-American, per se. they just show the problems in the American auto industry without the rose-colored glasses that other media outlets seem to use. i can only say to keep up the good work.
The “truth” is not always nice. It’s not always pleasant to hear. And while it may fall like nails scratching a chalkboard to some, and (still) deaf to others, it must be said.
Ever since first stumbling on this website many months ago, I have read my fill of review, editorial, rant, and rave. It is worth noting that these are the opinions of the writing staff but it’s also worth noting that there are no punches pulled, no product endorsements, no motive except to deliver unbiased and original writing. And if there is indeed a prejudice here, it is that the staff (like the readers) all love cars (maybe a little too much, but certainly not like the Jalopos). And it’s a tough thing to love when faced with the facts about the situation the American car companies are in.
RF, don’t listen to the “un-American” crap. Maybe the Suicide/Death Watches are harsh criticism but imagine if the heads at the Big 2.8 actually read these articles and took the right action. The website would be their blueprint to success. How “un-American” could that be?
KatiePuckrik :
The last person I want to hear from works for the IRS.
I agree that the comments section underneath the May post degenerated into a bit of a slanging match. At some point during that day, I tired of editing out all the nationalistic comments and let the usual TTAC standard of civilized conversation slip.
I stand by my decision to run the original post. Having lived in the UK for 16 years, I know a xenophobe when I see/hear/read/get hit by one. Mr. May's editorial was unfair, mean-spirited and just plain wrong. He wasn't bashing American cars or carmakers. He was bashing America and Americans.
The fact that commentators were guilty of much the same sort of prejudice doesn't excuse the original insult. Nor does it temper my desire to expose it, via Mr. Swanson's excellent piece.
As for the one big happy family love of cars thing, I learned a long time ago that a mutual love does not eliminate inter-personal strife and conflict. In fact, it can make it worse.
Perhaps it is because many of the writers are American based that the majority of the automotive news is American, and consequently, the majority of critical news is from Domestic manufacturers, but I cannot on good concience say that this site is as objective as claimed when derisive nicknames are used when referring to corporate leadership (Boot-Em Bob, Rabid Rick, the Glass House Gang, etc.) or even the domestic industry as a whole (2.-whatever decimal you like depending on the wind, astrological report and Dow Jones industrial average). To me, that removes any objectivity there might have been and leads me to conclude that there is a bias in how editorials are written.
Even the most liberal columnist who opposes President Bush’s policies won’t refer to him as “Monkey Man” when they’re ripping into one of his speeches.
I disagreed with Mr. Swanson’s position — I think that he missed that Mr. May was just pissing on in a typical British way that they reserve for, well, everything!
Still, in my mind, Mr. Swanson was coming from the right place in that he was seeking to separate appropriate criticism of the products and the businesses that build them, from an inclination to dislike the products because those products are built by Americans.
I believe that it was Mark Twain who said that we should love the country but hate the government (or perhaps guv’mint, if you prefer.) In that sense, we should be willing to criticize our institutions, including businesses, with the goal that they do better.
What I hate to see are those who would attack GM because they see that as a proxy for attacking America as an ideal. For the most part, I tilt so far left that I’m practically falling on the ground, but at the end of the day, I still bleed red, white and blue, and I want us as a nation to do well (and to do right by the world, too.)
So when I smell that someone is vilifying the American automakers as just another convenient Yank symbol to beat up on for the sake of it, I get offended, too. While I didn’t see that in May’s piece, I believe that I did see it in some of the responses on the discussion thread that followed.
Also, I say that if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. It’s a bit hypocritical of anyone to defend May’s cheap shots while not being able to take it in return. I realize that the cheap shots aren’t very clever — we really should give the bad teeth rhetoric a rest already, as it’s not really creative and not even accurate anymore — but still, you reap what you sow. If you’re going to go Yank bashing, you can’t be shocked if they shoot you back. (After all, we still don’t have gun control over here!)
Mr Farago,
Mr Swanson’s piece wasn’t good and didn’t really have much to do with bad cars, rather than getting a rather large chip on his shoulder.
I don’t want to turn this into another slanging match, but let’s leave it at that.
I like reading about Detroit’s latest cock-up or Toyota’s latest recall. Not about Mr Swanson’s beef with someone. I’d rather hear about Mr Swanson’s beef with the Lexus trying to expand their brand.
Bloody hell, I actually enjoyed the arguments we had over whether Lexus expanding brand is a good idea or not! That was less volatile! :O)
quasimondo :
If an inflammatory style equals bias, then I couldn’t possibly defend TTAC against that charge.
Can of worms opening time: I don’t believe objectivity is an absolute. A good journalist does his or her level best to find an objective truth given their personal prism. In fact, understanding and acknowledging these underlying assumptions (unlike your average Dan Rather wannabe) makes a person a better journalist.
Would you say the fact that I have antipathy to corporate incompetence and greed, and sloppy steering racks, removes my ability to be objective? Perhaps so.
KatiePuckrik: Mr. Swanson mentioned his uncle dying for Mr May’s right for freedom of speech (because NO British, French, Indians, Australians, Canadians fought!
While you’re implying I don’t care about the other nations involved (I guess), because I did not mention other our allies in WWII, I’ll clarify that for you right now.
I’ve complete respect for those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder and put their lives on the line to defeat a common enemy in WWII. All allies. Bar none. Those who served, no matter what their nationality, deserve to be honored.
I’ve no chip on my shoulder (really) and I agree with you: Let’s talk about cars now. :-)
I, personally, wasn’t offended by Mr. May’s comments about Americans. It did seem mean spirited and uninformed in spots, but his entire point was to entertain. Do you get offended when a Dave Chappelle cracks jokes about your race? They may not be accurate, but they generally are based in at least a little truth. The Big Horn Edition Ram, from a British perspective, may look like the height of stupidity. Does that make it stupid? I don’t think so because I see plenty of people using them to their full capabilites on a daily basis.
If Mr. May’s article had really been a review, it would be easier to call him on it, but it seems to me that it’s intent was to entertain – in the form of poking fun at Americans – a British audience.
Drat, I appear to have missed all the fun from the previous article. Time to go look it up.
Now if Mr. Farago wanted to stir it up he could create the Truth about Politics website. There’s a flame war just waiting to happen…one I wouldn’t want to moderate from the moon!
Orian,
That is a website that I could not be a part of. It is much harder to keep a calm head when the subject of your scrutiny is on your payroll.
RF,
I wouldn’t question this percieved bias if the tongue-in-cheek humor didn’t apply to just GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Maybe I’ll have to dig through the archives again to see if there were any fancy nicknames given to Ferdinand Piech when he was hemmhorraging VW money to resurrect the Bugatti name and green light the Phaeton, but I’ve only seen such a style directed only at domestic automakers.
RF:
I’ve never met you or any of the TTAC staff and I owe you nothing.
Now that that has been established, I couldn’t agree more with your comments above as well as N85523’s.
1. TTAC critique’s are consistent. The ass chewing here does not discriminate. (This coming from a thin-skinned native Detroiter who was offended by Mays)
2. The Detroit News and Free Press are more *in bed* with the Big 2.0 (Chrysler is neither big nor a public company any more) than the buff books/motor mags these days. “Analysis” is one thing they are incapable of producing. Their articles and reviews are written BY the blue collar Detroiter FOR the blue collar Detroiter. I’m all for loyalty, but not from a media establishment.
3. N85523 took the words right outta my mouth. Not only have I always felt that TTAC would scream their praises for the Big 2.0 or CelerySler when they finally hit a home run, but for crissakes, in every TTAC review/editorial, you all but give them the ANSWERS to the TEST.
-Maybe its time for the Mustang to benefit from independent suspension.
-The Malibu needs a competitive 4-pot to compete with the transplants, not a sliding rear bench
-Freshened sheetmetal for the Focus ain’t gonna cut it — that eight year old platform needs to be updated
-They should have spent less time designing the chrome rims for the “insert model here” and put that money towards the interior fit and finish
-Nobody is fooled by badge engineering anymore; there either needs to be a distinction between models, or don’t make two/three/four models (and a higher sticker price doesn’t qualify as a distinction)
etc etc etc
And if I’m not mistaken, you have called out the few models that Detroit produces which are truly Best In Class. Forgive me for only remembering the Corvette and Silverado/F series (if I’m not mistaken; before the new Tundra was released)
Keep up the great work, RF et al.
TTAC’s ban on flaming is a very wise policy. Without such a brake, anonymous discussions on the Web tend to get toxic. I think the comments on James May’s piece got more excited than usual because May was so hyperbolic. His style is to bash everything with a furlong-wide bat. I don’t care for that, just like I don’t like Don Rickles’ insult humor. You can poke fun at someone or something without being nasty (just read some of Will Rogers’ columns on politicians). Even “Spitting Image” had wit and cleverness to relieve the bias.
Another factor is the natural tendency to resent criticism from an outsider. We might think a cousin or brother is a foolish wastrel, but we don’t like to hear that confirmed by non-family members.
At a restaurant in London, as soon as the waitress learned I was American she launched into a lengthy diatribe about the US’ awful policies and politicians. I kept in mind that I was a guest in the UK and refrained from answering in kind. (The woman probably just spends too much time reading the Guardian or listening to the BBC.) However, if we apply the James May method of extrapolating from a small sample, we would have to conclude everybody in the UK is insanely angry at the US!
When they were warned to make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators; many penned expletive-laden emails accusing me of Stalin-style censorship. Not to mention casting aspersions upon my sexuality, raising doubts about my patriotism and good old-fashioned death threats.
It’s for that exact reason that I left other car forums (I won’t give any name).Here, I found a witty, polite, sarcastic, and warm community, where there is no trolling, flaming, and other distasteful excesses. For that, i thank the staff of TTAC.
Regarding the “Anti-American” bias, I would argue that:
- it has nothing to do with being anti-american, as the auto industry is now extremely globalized. Although it’s been discussed to death, the only thing that remains truly American with the Detroit 2.8 is their perception, not even where they repatriate their profits (or lack thereof), since sharholders can be scattered across the world
- car tests do not seem to me to suffer from national bias (bias towards hoonism and performance, yes, but that’s the ponit of this webiste). Some American cars have been rated highly. Furthermore, it does not rate long-term reliability, an area where the Germans, a perennial favorite here due to their generally high performance, tend to fail miserably.
- regardless of the arguments made above, there is nothing wrong or anti-national in admitting that products “from” your country suffer from shortcomings, if it is indeed the case.
I’m french, and freely admit that the French administration is bloated, Renaults look too quirky and have aged badly, French-made computers have thankfully gone the way of Oldsmobile, and Peugeots are porky front-drivers. As long as I don’t spend my time denigrating everything about a country, criticim can be extremely constructive (listen, Detroit!)
Regarding the op-ed in question, I did not find it very good. While I did not read the original article, what can be expected from the Brits anyway ;-)?
However, instead of replying point-by-point to that original article, and maybe use the same snotty sarcasm, Mr. Swnason seemed genuily offended by Mr. May…which may have been what Mr. May intended in the first place.
A more constructive op-ed would have focussed on strong points in American automobiles (and food, if need be).
As far as I’m concerned? No big deal! I just skimmed over that op-ed and anxiously waited for the next piece of objective, hard-boiled journalism appearing on TTAC so often.
My problem with Mr. Swanson’s article is that it wasn’t about cars. It was about an article that another journalist wrote about cars. You can agree or disagree with what James May wrote. You can feel he was totally off base, bigoted, anti-American, what-have-you, and that’s fine. I subscribe to Top Gear and watch it when I can, and I love their style of writing and get a huge laugh out of how much they hate American cars and the fun they poke at Americans (and before anyone goes off and accuses me of being anti-American I’m an 8 year veteran of the US Marines and served in the first Gulf War and come from a long line of servicemen back to the American Revolution). Also, anyone who is a regular fan of Top Gear knows their opinion’s change at whim. One moment they hate a particular car, and the next, it happens to be the best whatever. They are entertainers first and foremost and are playing to a predominantly British audience.
TTAC should be about cars, not about what somebody else said somewhere else to an entirely different audience about cars. Swanson’s article may have been well-written but, it seems to me he should have posted it in the comments section of the website that carried May’s article and not submitted here.
As to the flame war that started in on the Brits, I felt that was completely uncalled for and off base. One man’s opinion does not a country’s opinion make. Even Bush only speaks for, what, 28% of the American people these days?
I think that TTAC is anti-crap. Since the American manufacturers put out so much crap, TTAC is perceived as anti-American (manufacturers). TTAC is quick to point out foreign crap as well, so I have no issues.
Thanks for a great site!!
Robert Farago: TTAC does not have an anti-American car or automaker bias. [- & -] Peruse our archives for reviews of American cars and you’ll find plenty of praise.
As to perception that TTAC has anti-American-car bias, here are some snippets from the TTAC archives. There are others that offer such praise. Really.
Ford Mustang GT Convertible: “All that fun, beauty, attention and acceleration for $32,000? Sold.”
Ford Fusion SE: “Combine the above with mpg’s in the high-20s, JD-pleasing reliability, the ability to transport five-adults in comfort and ladies and gentlemen, I think we have found the performance deal of the year.”
Chrysler Pacifica: “Buying a Pacifica is one of those rare instances where you really can have it all (assuming you have a spare $30k): the comfort of a luxury sedan, the practicality of a minivan and the psychological security of an SUV.”
Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertable GT: “If you’re looking for a spacious, well-built, sensibly-priced drop top…the PT Cruiser Convertible is the ideal fresh air whip, bar none.”
Chrysler 300C SRT-8: “With the addition of a glorious, pumped-up Hemi and vastly improved driving dynamics, the 300C SRT-8 transforms a great car into an instant (though proletariat) classic.”
Cadillac CTS-V (2004): “After caning the V, I predict Caddy’s new, feistier beast will meet or beat the best. No bull.”
Here are a few (and again there are others) that deem “foreign cars” as less than stellar:
Jaguar Sportwagon: “Unless Jaguar returns to their founding formula, laughable distractions like the Sportwagon will be their undoing.”
Jaguar XK8: “Granted, if you liked your last XK8, you will love this one. But if your driving tastes lean more towards the Porsche end of the spectrum, or if you think a Jaguar “sports car” should have a bit of E-Type aggression in its DNA, don’t bother.”
Mercedes-Benz B 200: “It brings no dishonor to the Mercedes brand. But in a field crowded with credible competitors, it’s simply too expensive for a relatively clunky-looking machine with a pedestrian interior.”
Mercedes-Benz C280 4MATIC: “If the new C is to defend and re-extend the brand’s rep for bulletproof engineering, it must improve its lower-priced models’ interiors, reliability and suspension. A Mercedes can be inexpensive, but it should never be cheap.”
TTAC truly is an equal-opportunity basher; yet when a vehicle is worthy, TTAC just as readily offers praise.
TTAC reviewers call ‘em like they see ‘em.
I don’t see TTAC being anti-American – may sometimes inconsistent with their reviews due to the amount of different contributors but I’d rather read 100 TTAC reviews before I have to put up with the generic pandering from Autoweak or Car and Drivel.
If TTAC is guilty of anything I think it is frustration with the domestic car makers that they can’t deliver the uniquely American style cars that people want and that we know that they could deliver – you know the type that Chrysler nearly got right with th 300C and Ford nearly got right with the Mustang?
The problem with the article commenting on Mr May’s possible anti-American bias is that it was an inherently emotional topic. Both the British and Americans have considerable national pride and both countries have commentators that have been guilty of occasionally making demeaning statements about other countries and cultures in order to bolster their national ego and demonstrate their patriotism. Having lived in Europe, Australia and the US I don’t much approve of such commentary as it is cheap, jingoistic and panders to one of the lowest of human emotions – the delusion of superiority based on where you were born. I applaud TTAC for not permitting such post at their sites but also wish they wouldn’t rise to the bait when Mr. May does it.
The US domestic automakers are among the worst-run large companies in the world, probably managed only slightly better than US domestic airlines. If the editorial slant of this site were “balanced” in its view of the domestics that would be a sign of pro-American bias, IMHO. They deserve to be flogged and flogged they shall be, until they give us all reason not to do so.
Having said that, I believe the piece in question was reflective of a more important trend on this site. I personally feel that editorial quality has slipped since the addition of the blog-like short news pieces. The James May article, to me, just wasn’t very good regardless of content. It was only tangentially about cars and/or the auto industry, didn’t really say anything particularly insightful (IMHO), and was pretty clearly written in anger. I know it’s easy for me to criticize, since I’m not the one trying to put out enough interesting content to bring people to the site and keep the ad checks coming in, but it seems to me that the pressure to do exactly that has taken a bit of a toll. Perhaps now with all of the news items there are simply too many things about which something “interesting” needs to be said.
I hope you take this as intended – as constructive criticism, not a flame. I still love the site.
Well, maybe I just have a thick skin, but I wasn’t offended by May’s article or Mr. Swanson’s rebuttal. Was the original article anti-American? Yes. However, that is what they do on Top Gear. More specifically,they knock anything anti-british. This has include the porsche 911, BMW 3 series and a host of other cars.Hell, they will give a car a phenominal review and then say they hate it. Clarkson is possibly the most anti-american on the show and yet purchased a Ford GT (and then sent it back and then re-purchased it). If anyone feels that those three are truly bigots, take a look at the last few minutes of their road trip in America episode. I felt that they did a good job of highlighting the tragedies in New Orleans and the issues many there face. In the end, I see them as comedians who talk about cars.
As for TTAC, I feel that the commentary here is pretty objective. Are there opinions in the articles posted here…Yes. However, this is the EDITORIALS link, so it is within reason. Additionally, I have never seen TTAC not be anything but forthright with facts regardless of the opinions of any one person. That is the most anyone can ask for. So TTAC, keep on keeping on. Otherwise, where am I supposed to go to talk about new cars and the car industry?
RF,
The overall mindset of the folks commenting on TTAC, and I should note that its the comments that make TTAC interesting, informative, entertaining.
Back to the mindset, in general its one of not being too kind towards Detroit, as if Detroit is a Tier 2 manufacturer compared to the Tier 1 manufacturer.
Which is understandable, TTAC merely reinforces what is well known ie: that Detroit lost out on an entire generation(30 years)of customers.
The article on the May article brought out the best and the worst, was it really a surprise?
I had no problem with May’s comments, even as an American. It is not like America is a land of perfection, and if an outsider criticizes, so what? It is not like the British are any kinder to themselves usually.
American cars generally suck. Even when they are good, they are typically abandoned after that year, never improved sufficiently, and lose value no matter what. And one good car in an entire lineup of crap is a hard sell (Corvette for Chevy, new CTS for the first year before they abandon it maybe for Cadillac, and, not to omit the Japanese, Lancer Evo X for Mitsubishi, a car company that is just as terrible if not worse than American ones.)
American car companies want to be better? Tell me how? By trying to appeal so broadly that they don’t appeal to anyone, just look at what Ford did to the C-XF concept. The one success was Chrysler for a while, because their cars were stylish in a very American way, then they too sunk.
Here’s an e-mail exchange from January (prompted by an unkind review of a domestic)that was deleted as violative of the “anti-flaming” policy. It seems apt to the discussion:
Name:Unbalanced E-mail:
I think my point is slightly different from what is usually thought of as “pro or anti-domestic bias”, and has more to do with sense and sensibility, but no problem. But if Mr. Mehta truly loves American cars, that is, contemporary American cars as opposed to the cool old ones that everybody loves, it’s hard to see how he could have filed a review like this of the Mustang GT, one of today’s strongest. As I say, I don’t own a modern American, probably for the usual reasons, but I’d appreciate occasionally getting the perspective through a TTAC quality review of someone who LOVES a Silverado or Focus or Charger, the kind of cars where you can sort of imagine why someone else would be mad for them even if you can’t be.
——————————————————————————–
From: Robert Farago [mailto:robertfarago@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Comment deleted
TTAC has a strict policy against accusing the site or its authors of pro or anti-domestic bias. While I appreciate the civility of your tone and the rationality of your argument, this kind of discussion opens the door to some VERY nasty stuff.
Thank you for your understanding.
RF
PS I’ve sent a copy of your remarks to Mr. Mehta, who, BTW, LOVES American cars.
Name: Unbalanced | E-mail:
I don’t like Thai food. So although I occasionally find myself joining others at Thai restaurants, it would never occur to me to offer recommendation or criticism. I just don’t get what’s good about Thai food.
Mehta doesn’t like American cars. That’s cool, lots of people don’t. Maybe most people. But this review sounds a lot like me giving opinions about Thai food. Mehta just does’t get what’s good about American cars.
American cars are big. They’re powerful. They’re smooth on the freeway. At their best, they look mean. They’re also less expensive than the competition, at least when it comes to power and roominess, and you can pick out where the costs were saved if you’re so inclined.
Mehta is so inclined. The size and power and price advantages don’t impress him, and the cost savings are a major irritant. The styling just doesn’t appeal. As I say, he’s probably in the majority in feeling this way, but that doesn’t mean the very sizable minority of consumers in this country who still prefer American cars are crazy. It just means they have different priorities and different sensibilities.
Hundreds of thousands of people have chosen Mustangs and 300’s and CTS’s over Accord coupes and STI’s and Avalons and G35’s that they could have purchased for the same money and not had to deal with smart-aleck friends and Consumer Reports telling them they should have bought a Toyota. They picked the American alternatives for lots of reasons, but bottom line, mostly because they like what American cars offer that others don’t. I don’t think that’s crazy.
Personally, I haven’t owned an American car in years. I like them when I rent them, but they don’t feel like what I’d want to be driving full time. But I can see why someone else would.
Next time it might be nice to seeing a domestic car, especially an appealing one like a Mustang or a 300 or a CTS, be reviewed by someone who appreciates their strengths.
here’s a tough question to answer: Why is there not a Mitsubishi death watch?
Mitsu has been circling the drain at a feverish pitch yet i see no chicken little style editorial chastising their mishaps.
While reading the comments to Mr. Swanson’s editorial, I was relieved that those who slurred the British did so without bringing up the most sensitive and hurtful stereotype: that English men are poor, dreadfully dull, clumsy, boring, unskilled, wooden, impassionate lovers.
I bring this up at the risk of own reputation because my numerous English ancestors crossed the pond to the new world a mere five generations ago.
I think we can all agree that this despicable notion is wholly without merit and should never again be repeated lest we reveal ourselves as insecure small minded bigots. Thank you all.
Let us now return to discussing cars…
Man I’m glad I skipped that shooting match. The thing I hated about the editorial was that it wasn’t a GM Deathwatch(or Ford or Chrysler), you left me with nothing to occupy my time on that truly boring ass day at work. Pains me to see a flaming match like that when I respect everyone one this site(writters & posters)so highly, come on we are all adults with the same love for cars.
RF – Can of worms opening time: I don’t believe objectivity is an absolute. A good journalist does his or her level best to find an objective truth given their personal prism. In fact, understanding and acknowledging these underlying assumptions (unlike your average Dan Rather wannabe) makes a person a better journalist.
I couldn’t agree more with that statement and that is part of the reason why I am here every day. This is the Truth about Cars!, not the Truth about cars so we dont hurt your feelings. Truth hurts a lot of times but it has to be told.
I am pro-domestic guy and pro-TTAC. I do not agree with all that is written—-but who cares if it’s interesting.
My only beef resides with both the explicit and implicit generalizations (from editorial and commentators) against those that buy domestic.
We are not this stupid, redneck, monolithic block as some would imply. We buy domestic for a variety of justifiable reasons—just like those that buy from foreign automakers. My reasons for buying a Mustang may be different but are NO better than the guy that buys the Nissan Z
Net—if ones intellectual ability is proven by what one has in their driveway—you got some serious in-security issues.
umterp85 What if it’s on blocks in the middle of there front lawn or dirt patch?
I need an accurate IQ meter where I live, regardless of what they buy the people are not that bright.
Mr. Farrago,
The TTAC website is a breath of fresh air amongst car enthusiast websites. It is not in any sense Anti-American. In fact if you just take the GMDW series as a case in point; as RF is the one who writes the GMDW articles there is a consistency that flows through every article and that is the sense that even when a particular GM vehicle seems to be getting it’s ass kicked that he (RF) wishes it wasn’t so. In other words, while criticizing GM there is the the sense that he would rather be praising GM if only there was a reason to do so. I guess it is a desire to see the home team do well however he (RF) is not about to lie about it. If the cars are crap, they’re crap! Maybe I am reading things into this but that’s the impression I get. I call it honesty and I very much appreciate it. So Mr. Farrago, you don’t need me to tell you but i will anyway, keep up the awesome work. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!
RF,
Please keep doing what you’re doing.
To everyone: At the end of the day, spats will happen, people’s feelings will be hurt, etc. But you know what? They’ll get over it. No one died. No one lost a limb.
We’re all here to kibbitz about our common love. May I suggest that if something here upsets anyone or is taken personally, before sending a response, sleep on it and respond a day later.
TTAC rocks….
RedBarchetta: My Point Is Proven.
The May (Flower?) debate produced what has been lacking lately at TTAC – lots of commentary.
If you multiply the views by the comments, you produce a popularity index and the TTAC has not had an index of these proportions for quite some time.
Controversy is healthy and invigorating.
Which is exactly what motivates Clarkson et al.
Would we had something similar to watch on the telly, but the odds on that are very long.
Maybe a little more tongue in cheek prose (about cars!) might liven up what has become herewith a somewhat somnolent and very serious website.
The ultimate(?) car guy, one Jay Leno by name, spends almost every night reminding America about its big asses and bad food, yet I see no sign of him being criticised on this, or any other website.
For me the essential truth remains that, for the most part, american cars are rubbish, a view that is supported by the tone and nature of many articles on this site. I don’t understand how the same apparent statement of reality can be anti-american when James May states it but not so when TTAC does it.
The answer is of course simply that, it is a statement of fact not anti-american sentiment. Taken this way then, the food and car industry in England or Ethiopia for that matter are irrelevant.
The reason why the Big 2.8 is in this mess is b/c they couldn’t look at themselves and recognize their failures. They couldn’t measure why their current path was not sustainable (though very foreseeable – cheap cars breeds distrust and distaste…and gas prices will inevitably rise). I really enjoyed reading editorials that hit back with a microscope past the Press Releases jabbing at how great things were and the miracle was right around the corner.
I wouldn’t be long in my job if I couldn’t analzye the department I run to find the weaknesses and build it stronger over time. Redirecting resources and finding sustainable cost cutting that didn’t destroy the long term growth takes time and frankly, intelligence – which is what I see is lacking from the Big 2.8 management. It’s full steam ahead and we’ll do it they way outgoing CEOs did 20-30 years ago. Never mind those Icebergs b/c the US auto industry is unsinkable.
You cannot improve it you don’t objectively look at yourself. Unless you do not want to know what really is going on.
I’m going to assume that a little more discretion than usual will be exercised about removing content critical of TTAC in this discussion, like previous site-discussion threads, but please delete this comment if necessary.
I want to agree with brownie completely about this. Supposed bias for or against particular car companies is not a problem TTAC needs to address any more than it already has done, and the reviews continue to be excellent and nonpartisan. But the news blog and some of the editorials are, frankly, subpar, and (though I usually just avoid them) it disappoints me to see them coming from the same place as such engaging and uncensored road tests. The news-blog pieces in particular often seem politically slanted and polemical, which in itself is not a problem except that the site’s editorial policy lays such stress on its supposed objectivity — and more worryingly, they seem intended as click-bait rather than serious discussion. You either need to be explicit that the news blog is a place for the site’s writers’ personal opinions and politics, or else focus things much more tightly on cars (and away from energy policy, international politics, etc.) and rein it in.
Speaking as a Canadian in all seriousness, I love the United States of America.
Great people, beautiful country, and an economy that even at the worst of times, is the envy of all Europe.
I’m confident this car thing will get sorted out, because history proves to never bet against the American people.
This is tough love time for the domestics, and nobody but TTAC is serving up the intervention. Oh, and let’s never ever forget that BMW at a corporate level, banned TTAC access to their vehicles.
TTAC is keeping it real – and that’s all we ask…
Keep up the good work – and continue this excellent commentary unencumbered by the PC police, politicians and their corporate cronies, the mainstream media, and any industry, establishment, or entity that represents the status quo…
I can say that I read only one article in two years that I felt was liberal anti-domestic. I made my point in the comments section in an inflammatory tone to purposely get attention. The post was deleted and an email from RF appeared that stated the policy.
I sent a reply explaining that I loved the site but found this article to be much more slanted and discriminatory than most on TTAC. RF replied with a simple “Point taken.” and we were both happy.
The kind of discourse that occurs at TTAC is very refreshing, and *most* of the writers do not have an agenda…that’s about 99% better than most websites claim in the ‘fair & balanced’ Dept.
I really do wish that RF would extend his enterprise to a “Truthaboutpolitics” website if only because I agree with Jon Stewart’s comments on Crossfire that “we need healthy political discourse…instead of party hackery”.
[Stepping down from the soap box]
….And another thing! look at the quality, courtesy and thoughtfulness of 99% of the commentators on this site (this thread is a good example). Compare it to some of the comments that are common on other car sites. I have read (as we all have) comments that were impossible to understand due to extreme use of expletives. You just don’t see that on TTAC.
Sometimes TTAC bashes to smithereens a car that I rather like. That makes me sad, naturally, and I go home and cry for a while. After that, I’m usually OK with the world because like it or lump it, the site posts what I perceive to be unbiased reviews of vehicles I’m interested in. I especially like that they do reviews of real production cars, not just top-end models or 1-off supersports cars. Case in point: the Grand Prix review that was posted Wed. I LOVE having access to solid reviews of cars I can afford and would consider purchasing.
RF works hard to keep this site content rich and BS free, and I applaud his efforts. Once I wrote a comment all wrong and got flamed for it, which at first raised my ire and was immensely embarrassing, but having RF respond to me directly raised this site immensely in my esteem. While the whole Mays Britain v. USA was irksome to me as it descended into nationalistic nonsense very quickly, I’m very glad that for the most part things here are kept civil and unbiased so we can get the best information possible, not just Car and Drivel style advertorials.
I’d forgotten that business about BMW refusing to let ttac test its cars… I write about cars for a living, but I won’t touch a BMW unless absolutely ordered to by somebody who will pay me major money to do so. I haven’t driven a BMW in probably five years and don’t miss them one bit, since they have the most abysmally inept PR department this side of Thai Airlines, which recently posted on its website, in the wake of their 89-fatality Phuket crash last weekend, that they’d be happy to help with “corpse removal” if grieving relatives called the hotline.
sur4die,
I’m sure a Mitsubishi death watch is in the making, once a TTACer manages to learn Japanese and read the Asahi Shimbun (a Japanese newspaper). :-)
Swanson’s original article was a bad argument made badly. When he went on about how May should have tried out a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry to sample a good American car the train was completely off the rails. A good editor would have thrown on the brakes there if not sooner.
My complaint is that publishing a hatchet job on another journalist’s piece when not once bringing any substantial counter arguments to play is at best dumb. The three vehicles May reported on generally deserved the poor reviews he gave them. His style was no more acerbic than TTACs.
I’m not sure what the point of running the Swanson piece was in the first place unless it was a bit of high level trolling. Trolling is when you post something primarily for the purpose of stirring up a controversy, sort of like kicking a hornet’s nest.
This isn’t about anti-American bias (or not) to me. May’s piece had strong grains of truth coated in hyperbolic language. TTAC’s response was little more than a hissy fit.
TTAC is just that – The Truth About Cars. Sometimes the truth hurts.
I am just happy to see that KatiePuckrik has returned.
The editorial a couple days ago unintentionally fanned some flames that shouldn’t even exist. Are Americans all fat? Do all Brits have bad teeth? These are stereotypes – and good fodder for comedians like Jay Leno – but they deserve no serious merit in a “debate” like the ones that take place here on TTAC.
As a Detroiter and an employee of a Ford supplier, opinions of ‘outsiders’ such as KatiePuckrik are like a breath of fresh air.
TTAC isn’t to blame for the anger and the hostility that resulted from that post. That’s the natural response of people who simply love their country.
The beauty of the TTAC community is demonstrated by the fact that someone like KatiePuckrik was so completely offended that she would boycott the site, only to return a couple days later to once again offer some great insight. We are better than the illiterates that post comments to the Detroit Free Press. I hope we can keep it that way.
Cheers to TTAC.