Cassandra Watch: Autoblog Edition

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
cassandra watch autoblog edition

While TTAC’s been busy chronicling the fall and fall of American automakers’ 100-year hegemony over the domestic auto industry, Autoblog’s been keeping its audience appraised of the latest modded cars, Mustangs and SEMA showpieces. Fair enough. We’re proud to be able to relieve AB of their obligation to blog hard news. But every now and then, AOL’s auto-bitch feels compelled to weigh-in on matters weighty. Normally, they take a predictable editorial line on Detroit’s disasters. That sucks. Good luck! And don’t don’t forget to park your latest whip in the Autoblog Garage. Thanks! So when there’s a change of tone at AB, it can only mean one thing. That REALLY sucks. Chris Shunk provides our excursion to the dark side of the moon (snicker snicker). After reporting on the Treasury Department’s “Just Say No” response to funding the GM – Chrysler merger, Shunk sums-up Motown’s End of Days, AB-style. “There is no doubt these are very troubled times for the U.S. auto industry, and it seems everything is happening very quickly right now. Most forecasts are pointing to a similarly dismal 2009, too, so this mess is far from over.” Thanks for the heads-up.

Join the conversation
4 of 17 comments
  • Robert Farago Robert Farago on Nov 01, 2008
    windswords : Why am I not surprised at your reaction? And why have you guys forgotten about the silent majority? The VAST majority of TTAC readers NEVER comment. While I understand that you may speak for many, I do not accept the idea that you speak for most. The view counter is the best indication of the "success" of these posts. 396 views ain't bad. Not great. But not bad. And if I'm totally honest-- which is, after all, the point-- these WTF AB posts keep TTAC focused. I need to remind myself and my team why we do what we do the way we do it. (This is how we do it.) Fair enough?

  • Windswords Windswords on Nov 01, 2008

    RF, Never commenting and never forming an opinion about what they are reading are not necessarily the same thing. If you want to think that by not commenting that means they are in agreement with your posting that is your perogative. Also I wish to point out that I never pretend to speak for anyone but myself, although I'm sure there are those who agree as well as disagree with me.

  • JuniorMint JuniorMint on Nov 02, 2008

    "Four out of nine commenters on this thread expressed some level of dissatisfaction with your product." Uh, hate to break it to you, but four out of nine is a minority. So I guess everything's fine!

  • Maniceightball Maniceightball on Nov 02, 2008
    So if you don’t want to read posts about Autoblog, don’t. Well, to be snarky... obviously. We can also stop reading altogether -- no one is forcing us to visit this site. But that response is sort of against the spirit of fostering a community. With a dynamic medium like this, you get the benefit of having audience interaction; clearly this is something you want, or you wouldn't have enabled comments. I think the comments on this site are one of the cooler things about it -- much better than the juvenile crap you see on other sites (AB has notoriously YouTube-like comments). There's a cost to that, though, and that is that some people are going to hold the site to a higher standard as a sort of gentleman's agreement. Maybe it was presumptuous of me to say what I said, and if this is the case, then I apologize. However, I think this type of corrective interaction between content creators and content consumers is one of the best things about the intertubes -- witness successful community sites where users have vocalized (or its online analog) their issues. In most cases, it yields a net positive result. Meanwhile, I will continue to take them to task. Oh come on... how many times do you have to take them to task? And at this point, isn't it a lost cause? Uh, hate to break it to you, but four out of nine is a minority. So I guess everything’s fine! Who says it needs to be a majority for it to be an issue? Some nontrivial portion of the site agrees that repetitive (and, I'd add, redundant) attacks against another site tend towards the petty with increased occurrence. And just to end this comment on a high note, I do appreciate the positive AB posts -- e.g. giving props to the Knight Rider liveblogs. While I'm not quite convinced they're that great myself, I just wanted to recognize that it's clear to me (and maybe the rest of the readers here?) that your posts aren't a result of blind ill-will towards them.