If you read car buff magazines back when you were a kid, do you do so anymore? As a young lad I subscribed to up to five different magazines, but I wouldn’t think of doing so now. I find most of today’s buff magazines and their web-based siblings to be highly polished but inordinately bland. They are rarely renegades.
That’s not how it used to be. During the 1960s and 1970s some buff magazines took the risk of challenging key elements of auto industry groupthink. For example, Car and Driver and Road & Track championed more efficient, roadworthy and well-built cars than Detroit’s standard fare.
Auto journalists denounced Detroit’s ‘land arks’
Car and Driver writer Brock Yates summed up the critique of U.S. cars as well as anyone:
“For as long as I have been writing about automobiles, I have belonged to a small coterie of writers who have been convinced that Detroit was building the wrong cars. Too often we were dismissed as obsessive ‘buffs’ who seemed to have a fixation with tiny, overpowered European sports cars. While it was true that many imported automobiles seemed to represent a shift toward efficiency and high technology and away from the chromed land arks of Detroit, we were far from the prejudiced ingrates that industry leaders described us to be. We simply believed that most American cars were too large, too heavy, too clumsy and too inefficient to meet the needs of the modern driver.” (1983, preface)
Magazines that printed such views put at risk ad revenue from U.S. automakers. For example, after Yates wrote a critical essay in 1968, an auto executive argued that he “was worse for the industry than Ralph Nader” (1983, preface). What did he say that was so unforgivable?
Yates predicted a dire future for U.S. automakers
Yates described a corporate management culture that failed to understand why import sales were soaring. He pointed to data that suggested that the automobile had shifted from being a status symbol to a “pain in the neck.” Despite warning lights flashing, “Detroit bustles onward in its Ike and Mamie good-life syndrome, convinced of its perpetual position of preeminence” (1968).
U.S. automakers didn’t listen to Yates and his ilk — and experienced one of the biggest industrial collapses of the last century. But once the dust settled, the average family car (as opposed to a truck or sport utility vehicle) did get a lot smaller and more sporting than the family sedans of yore.
The auto media critics were proven right. You’d think that would have emboldened them to continue producing robust journalism. Alas, the buff media instead began their long slide into irrelevance.
Where are today’s automotive renegades?
That raises the question: What do the buff magazines and their web-based siblings stand for today? That the world needs more 700-horsepower engines and soft-plastic interior surfaces?
Are there any spiritual heirs to Yates in his reformist prime? Or have the buff media become a vast wasteland of industry groupthink?
My sense is that over the last two decades we’ve seen glimmers of hope. The early Jalopnik and The Truth About Cars showed a lot of spunk and creativity. Auto Extremist has its moments. And, at their best, Hemmings, Curbside Classic, Ate Up With Motor have helped us see the past — and thus the present — in more accurate ways.
I would nevertheless suggest that the auto buff media have become rather stale. The Internet is overflowing with splashy infotainment — particularly of the “boys-with-toys” variety — but not a whole lot of hard-nosed journalism. That may partly reflect media consolidation. In addition, advertising revenue has been increasingly shaky in recent years. Both factors have arguably resulted in less editorial risk taking.
Whatever the causes, the auto buff media could use an infusion of new energy. Upstart media outlets such as Electrek may have an easier time of charting new ground precisely because they are less bound by past traditions.
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a story that was originally posted June 24, 2014.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Yates, Brock; 1983. The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Empire Books, New York, NY.
- ——; 1968. “The Grosse Pointe Myopians.” Car and Driver. Republished May 2, 2018; June 1, 2018.
I used to subscribe to the big 3 many years ago, when I was still a “believer”, lol. I also used to read Automotive News regularly. Now, I read Indie Auto online plus a few magazines about vintage and classic cars. I get new car news from various sources but none that I visit routinely. I’m more than happy with my current choices. I especially enjoy the content and reader comments/input on here.
WRT current US motoring media, I have lost all interest. I lost it several years ago, as there is virtually no content in print that is useful to the average enthusiast. Every issue now is dedicated to some updated unobtanium super car that was once the province of young teen boys’ bedroom posters 40 years ago.
At the turn of the century there was a tabloid style magazine called AMI Auto World Weekly. I liked the Consumer Guide-like feel of the magazine without the overbearing “authoritative opinion” of Consumer Reports. It was like the Entertainment Tonight of automotive magazines, but there were actual reviews of current model vehicles in all price ranges. It also had advice on all kinds of automotive issues, aimed at a wide audience. In particular, I remember an article regarding recommendations on child seats for young parents.
But, in the intervening 20 years since the magazine folded (not many men look at the checkout counter magazine racks for their bathroom reading and few women want to do that deep of a dive on automotive subjects), the major magazines have retreated to discussing the finer points of the latest Porsche 911 variation and declaring the latest whatever type of car/truck/SUV from Toyota to be the Second Coming.
To an extent, I can understand the rags’ reluctance to critically review the latest CRFlexCross-4 SUV. It would be a waste of paper and ink to do so; many reviews available either in print or in other formats are essentially regurgitated press releases. Print what sells, which ain’t the latest CUV. You can get that propaganda anywhere.
At TTAC, Jack Baruth used to rail on about Mommy Bloggers and influencers, i.e., folks who have little or no understanding in what makes a vehicle unique and why this is good or not. Not all reviewers need to be Consumer Reports analytical or Dan Neil critical, but we need folks who can do more than parrot the company line.
That was well put, George. My biggest beef with current automotive media content is that it reads too much like public relations . . . repeated over and over. As I discussed here, during a typical week one can find literally dozens of buff magazines and trade journals running virtually the same stories about new-product announcements and industry personnel changes.
I come out of the public policy realm so have a keen interest in issues such as how transportation impacts climate change. However, I can see from Indie Auto’s readership statistics that so few share that interest that these kind of stories arguably aren’t worth taking the time to write. All which raises the question of whether I’m in the wrong media niche.
I don’t recall AMI Auto World; that was during a stretch of time when I was so busy that my auto reading diet had largely contracted to Automotive News.
AMI Auto World existed during the late ’90s. Former C/D editor William Jeanes was the Editor, and it was published by one of the ‘supermarket tabloid publishers’ on a bi-weekly schedule. The mag died shortly after Jeanes left.
I think IndieAuto is much more rigorous in its analysis than other automotive media. It really is quite incredible!
Alas, we must all give ourselves the Yates Sanity Check now and then. The quoted statement below is largely but not fully aligned with the actual history.
“…once the dust settled, the average family car (as opposed to a truck or sport utility vehicle) did get a lot smaller and more sporting than the family sedans of yore.
The auto media critics were proven right.”
It is plainly true that Detroit took an incredible fall, and for many reasons. Yates was right.
It is also true that cars got smaller and sportier. And yet, the history shows that no sooner did this happen, cars began being replaced by crossovers. Ironically, the shift was fueled by one of the masters of quality small cars: Toyota. Not only the ’95 RAV4 but the ’99 Lexus RX300, a breakthrough car that proved the potential advantage of being first-to-market, by owning the segment for the next two decades.
In 2019 all cars – from small to large – represented only 30% of the U.S. market while SUVs/MPVs represented 50%.
https://www.jato.com/american-customers-tastes-continue-to-shift-as-sales-plateau-again-in-2019/
Could it be that the U.S. auto industry prior to the move to small cars was in fact responding to customer feedback that suggested lots of people wanted something larger than small? And as it turned out, not only in length and width but in height. And they wanted more utility and all-weather capability. And yes, most also wanted responsive, nimble handling and a good ride, which well-designed small cars provided.
I bring this up to not only point out that critics sometimes get it… let’s just say, not quite right… but because here we go again. Regulators and the industry are moving headlong into EVs, which some industry observers have long championed. I champion them too.
The problem is that the industry is specifically electrifying the existing vehicle segments that they and their customers know. There is no push to connect new dots, no reach to more fully realize the historic opportunity at hand. Let the 9,000 lb Hummer EV be the poster child for their ill-honed strategic mindset.
And where is the hue and cry from the industry critics? Not about electrification per se, but of the specific segments being electrified. As I have expressed before, the average vehicle occupancy in the U.S. is only 1.5 passengers, and the industry/regulator collective Groupthink is about to add hundreds and even thousands of pounds to vehicles that will continue to punch huge holes in the air, with tremendous energy expenditure, to propel vehicles that have only one in four seats occupied.
Count me as not only a critic of the industry and its regulators and investors, but of Groupthink industry critics!
I’m finding Indieauto to be such a breath of fresh air and just discovered this article at, let’s see…it’s 4:30 a.m. Probably should sleep a bit longer, but this is too much fun. Keep up the great work, Steve!
But back to the topic. I religiously (can I say that?) followed all those risky writers with a certain reverence. As writer who studied the New Journalism of the late 60s, early 70s (Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, Studs Terkel…you get the idea), as an enthusiast I couldn’t get enough of Brock, David E. or Tom McCahill. LJK Setright, Jean Jennings Lindamond, Denise McCLuggage, and old school hot rodders Yer Ol’ Dad Gray Baskerville and LeRoi “Tex” Smith provided honest views of the world for this budding gearhead.
Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio?