Daily Podcast: A Bad Reflection on Us?

by Robert Farago

Published: March 26th, 2008

As you know, TTAC has a simple posting policy: no flaming the website, it's authors or fellow commentators. As some commentators have [rightly] pointed out, the policy contains a glaring inconsistency: we allow flaming of third parties. GM Car Czar Bob Lutz, Toyota, The New York Times, President Bush, etc. have all been flame-broiled on this site. [NB: if Bob Lutz or George Bush posted on TTAC, they'd have anti-flame protection.] My only defense for this obvious double standard: it works. I'm not going to make that case by pointing to any of the incisive remarks penned by our Best and Brightest. Instead, I'd like to draw your attention to the comments (and picture of a douche) underneath a Jalopnik link to my last GM Death Watch. If you share some of these sentiments about TTAC, I invite you to voice them right here, right now. All I ask is that you do so in a civilized manner. Because that's who we are, and that's what you do. Meanwhile, Justin and I discuss the day's news.

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 70 comments

Frank Williams on Mar 28, 2008
Mj0lnir : Do me a favor. Go read Niedermeyer’s news blurb about CGI developments in design and advertisement and then explain why the last two sentences do not indicate an editorial bias. So using your logic, if he'd said, say, "bring the man an xB," we would have a indicated an editorial bias against imports. ANY comment made for or against ANY car can be twisted to show a bias for or against something. If you can write a totally unbiased editorial or review of anything, we welcome your contribution. And if you truly think TTAC is biased against imports, I encourage to look at the cold, hard facts.

Like Reply
Pch101 on Mar 28, 2008
Like I said- it’s not necessarily bad, but quit pretending it doesn’t exist I guess that you didn't also notice the potshots taken at Toyota's donation to the Audobon Society or the pronouncements of Lexus' failure in Japan. Very selective reading glasses.

Like Reply
Landcrusher on Mar 28, 2008

Without snide remarks, it would not be a review at all. Why do you think actors hate critics? The snarky remarks are part of the art form. Only the most glowing reviews are without snideness, and they always have other forms of humor to replace it. In fact, I would bet that hundreds, if not thousands, of auto reviews contain snide remarks that even the author did not agree with. He put them in the review because he wanted to show off his wit.

Like Reply
Mj0lnir on Apr 01, 2008
Frank Williams : March 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am And if you truly think TTAC is biased against imports, I encourage to look at the cold, hard facts. You do realize that that post does nothing to address the tone of posts? Furthermore, it doesn't begin to explain why an offhand comment that chooses to attack a domestic vehicle in a "news" item isn't bias. Frank Williams : March 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am If you can write a totally unbiased editorial or review of anything, we welcome your contribution. Here's where your logic, and the logic of some of your fellow posters, breaks down- the Niedermeyer post I referred to was neither an editorial nor a review. It was ostensibly a news item, and basic news doesn't generally require an editorial interjection. I wouldn't begin to pretend I could write a bias-free editorial or review. I could, however, tell you that manufacturers are developing new technologies without mocking a product. See the difference? Choosing to mock a specific thing/person/company in a news item that requires nothing more than who/what/when/why is a sign of bias. Period. If your local paper had a front page article about the new sanitation contract your city signed (simple reporting, right?), and at the end the reporter said something along the lines of "Maybe they could pay XYZ Garbage Co. to haul away the mayor", you'd view that as an attack on the mayor. It would be an appropriate comment in an op/ed piece about the mayor's conduct, but it's a clear sign of biased reporting in a "news" piece on the front page, and since it wasn't about the city manager or district attorney it's fair to assume that the writer (and the editor that allowed it to print) dislikes the mayor. If you want to hold TTAC to a different standard, that's okay, but stop pretending that the editors and many contributors aren't biased.

Like Reply