Successful automotive journalists need to master these two rules

April 4, 2022 Steve Media Analysis 0
A Baruthosaurus at the keyboard

(ORIGINALLY POSTED 5/24/2014)

Many are called but few are chosen to be professional automotive writers. Some things you can’t control, like technological change and media consolidation. However, aspiring writers can increase their odds of success by following two rules.

In a moment we will show you how those rules undergird a Jack Baruth (2013c) essay. This instant classic epitomizes the current state of automotive punditry on the web. But before delving into Baruth’s masterpiece, let’s explore the origins of automotive journalism’s two rules.

Rule Number 1: No gimmick, no glory

This rule is summed up by a Stephen Sondheim song called, “You Gotta Get A Gimmick.” Older readers may recognize this as a song in the 1962 movie, Gypsy (Wikipedia, 2014). View the film clip below and imagine that the characters are all disheveled automotive writers at a bar rather than strip-tease dancers in a burlesque house.

The scene begins with an argument among the strippers. One woman — a former ballerina — insists that “to be a stripper, all you need to have is no talent.” Not true, responded another stripper — you’ve also got to have “an idea that makes your strip special.”

This is a brilliant insight. All of the most memorable American automotive writers and media outlets have had a gimmick of one sort or another.

As a case in point, the legendary Tom McCahill was the master of over-the-top metaphors, e.g., the 1957 Pontiac’s ride was as “smooth as a prom queen’s thighs” (Wikipedia, 2014). In the 1960s and 70s, Car and Driver magazine almost single-handedly invented Alpha-male snarkiness, such as with humorously dismissive retorts to letter writers. Dan Neil landed a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 through hilarious asides that tiptoed into social criticism more than is typical of automotive writing (Wikipedia, 2013; stories submitted for Pulitzer Prize consideration).

Also see ‘Auto buff media are rarely renegades anymore’

It doesn’t take much squinting to see how today’s automotive writers draw from these traditions. Where oh where did Derek Kreindler (2013) get the inspiration to snark that the Jeep Cherokee’s new transmission “is about as calm as Robin Williams at his most amphetamine-addled. . . .”?

The more populist automotive writers have always had a certain coarseness, but the rise of the Internet has resulted in a loosening of editorial inhibitions. That includes gratuitous sexual references (Schmitt, 2013a, 2013b) as well as rhetorical brawling reminiscent of The Jerry Springer Show.

Peter DeLorenzo
Peter DeLorenzo is the reigning champ of automotive invective.

Consider Peter DeLorenzo’s website, Auto Extremist. In a recent column he recounted why former CEO of General Motors Dan Akerson should be called “That Unctuous Prick extraordinaire” (2014, original italics). Fellow writers who thought DeLorenzo was “going over the top and losing perspective” were dismissed as bootlickers, toadies and hacks who write worthless stories “with breathless prose designed to promote Akerson as one of the great leaders of automotive history.” Why? So they would be “granted even more access in the future, in order to write even more worthless stories.”

DeLorenzo suggested that these writers “can all stop looking down at your wingtips and cowering in your power cubes” in the hope that no one will notice their handiwork. “I will be glad to remind everyone who you are in my next book: Hacks I have Known. It’s the least I can do.”

A wee bit vulgar, abrasive and thin skinned? Perhaps, but DeLorenzo does shed light on the decidedly permeable boundary between automotive journalism and public relations. He also possesses a keen sense of branding. DeLorenzo’s rhetorical volleys are in complete sync with his website’s promise to provide “The Bare-Knuckled, Unvarnished, High-Octane Truth.”

Also see ‘Peter DeLorenzo continues to continue with his usual swagger’

Indeed, DeLorenzo illustrates one of the more potent gimmicks used by automotive writers. He plays the role of “bad boy.” That’s a reasonable strategy. The “good boys” of automotive media typically don’t stand out. Their writing may never displease industry flacks, but they are also boringly predictable.

It’s the bad boys who are most likely to generate a cult following among readers. Even if you don’t agree with their particular views — or are put off by the excessiveness of their schtick — there’s still that ever-present curiosity: Who will they attack next? And can they get away with it?

Traffic circle sign

Rule Number 2: You must show you are part of the tribe

One of the most important lessons an automotive writer can learn is how to be a bad boy while convincing industry insiders that they still part of the tribe. This can be a difficult dance because of the rigidity of industry groupthink.

Dan Neil is a cautionary tale. His cheeky reviews at the Los Angeles Times were popular with readers but resulted in an advertising boycott by General Motors. Jalopnik’s editorial spine isn’t known for being steely hard, but once upon a time it did post choice quotes from a Neil column (Spinelli, 2004):

Dan NeilDan Neil on the 2004 Mercury Montego:

“A car whose lack of charisma is so dense no light can escape its surface. . . .”

“. . . the Montego’s version of upscale is of the Korean off-shore casino variety.”

“The faux-grain interior trim looks like it came off a prison lunch tray.”

“Overall, the car has a profoundly geriatric feeling about it, like it was built with a swollen prostate.”

Independent Sources (2005) wondered whether it was coincidental that Neil’s first post-boycott review of a GM product was unusually positive. And even nine years later my sense is that Neil’s writing is less colorful and edgy than it was before the boycott.

Also see ‘Dan Neil: Auto journalists feel great pressures’

There’s no one-size-fits-all recipe for gaining legendary status with readers without being tarred, feathered and run out of town by the powers that be. However, one survival technique that has been used — perhaps unconsciously — is to balance being critical with playing the role of industry advocate.

Put simply, the more harshly you criticize an automaker or a media outlet, the more aggressively you need to fight for an industry position on an important issue.

Fire hydrant

Let’s see how Jack Baruth plays the game

Here we have a talented young writer who has taken unusually big risks. I would go as far as to describe Baruth as the American automotive media’s leading critic.

He has skewered some of the biggest sacred cows in the industry, such as media monguls David E. Davis (2011a) and Dutch Mandel (2011b, 2013b). Baruth has also pulled back the curtain on how automotive journalism operates with his series, “How To Be An Automotive Journalist” parts I (2010a), II (2010b) and III (2010c).

Also see ‘Accountability journalism: An endangered species in auto media’

Baruth makes his critiques more entertaining by dressing them up with gimmicks such as hooniganism, sexual bravado and a potty mouth that can even give DeLorenzo a run for his money.

This may lead some to assume that Baruth is a class clown who refuses to grow up. This may well be the case, but he has also displayed the courage to say what needs to be said.

An example of the nuance in Baruth’s (2013a) thinking can be found in his meditation on automotive writers and their readership:

Jack Baruth“Too many of the blogosphere’s readers are looking for what I call ‘sucks and rocks’. They refuse to permit a word or an opinion or a review to have a nuanced meaning…. Having reduced everything to black and white, they then argue viciously against the reduction. They set up straw men, rush them headlong, then struggle mightily in their grip. Nothing short of a full-throttle, unequivocal endorsement of their personal beliefs will satisfy — and why should it, when they can get just that from outlets ranging from the Huffington Post to ClubLexus?”

Baruth goes on to note that this state of affairs has resulted in the rise of single-issue websites “where readers vomit the naked soul of their bellowing ids into a forum and the resulting pap is stirred strongly and fed back to them in featured articles gravid with undisguised OEM input,” Baruth wrote. “I won’t yield to that idea.”

That’s heroic. And first-rate media criticism. However, it also makes Baruth vulnerable to the charge that he’s crossed the line.

Don't tread on me bumper sticker

Not surprisingly, every so often Baruth turns into an utterly ferocious industry advocate. Some might nominate other postings, but I think his most impressive effort to date was a counterpoint to Jane Brody’s (2013) New York Times column, “Commuting’s Hidden Cost.”

Baruth’s (2013c) essay could have elevated the blogospheric dialogue by disagreeing with Brody in a civil, nuanced and factually-grounded way. Instead, he stooped to cheap demagogic tricks: ad hominem attacks, indignantly kicked straw men, a remarkable disregard for basic facts, absurdly conflated policy issues and — by the end of the essay — hyperbolic spray all over the computer monitor.

Also see ‘TTAC’s Matt Posky raises false fears about end of owning private cars’

Baruth is a humble guy so I assume that his main goal was to feed the bellowing ids of his Truth About Cars readers. A goodly number of the essay’s commentators did indeed cheer him on with “yeah, she’s a twit” and “damn all these anti car people and their stupid ideas.”

Nevertheless, what may matter more for the long-term arc of Baruth’s writing career is that he has proven he can flack with the best in the business, such as Patrick Bedard (e.g., 2008) and Brock Yates (2005) in their later years at Car and Driver magazine. This is a huge achievement.

A Baruthosaurian rant that would fit in Car and Driver

The first thing to keep in mind about Baruth’s masterpiece is that it isn’t real journalism. In fact, his essay would flunk an undergrad Editorial Writing course. This is a comprehensive display of id vomit. Baruth’s prose didn’t just erupt from the reptilian part of his brain — it roared from his inner Baruthosaurus.

“In a breathtakingly ignorant and Antoinette-esque work of empathy-free idiocy, Jane Brody looks out of her castle windows and discovers Commuting’s Hidden Cost.” –JB

That’s why you have got to let go of facts and logic when reading the essay. For example, Baruth absurdly equated bike-sharing services with not being allowed to own your own bike. With godlike certitude he pronounced that young people don’t enjoy living in the city despite meaningful evidence to the contrary (e.g., Toppo and Overberg, 2013; Flint, 2014).

And why on earth did he even contest that as the elderly become frail they may choose to move where they no longer have to take care of a yard (Fausset et al., 2011)?

“BIKE SHARING? What the actual fuck. The rest of us can’t even have our own bicycle now?”   –JB

“Young people enjoy living in the city? This is news to me — said nobody ever. Old people don’t want to mow the lawn? Amazing.”  –JB

The spittle now flying in all directions, Baruth proceeded to warn about the specter of “outrageously oppressive anti-automobile regulation and taxation.” How did he read that into a Brody column which merely presented information about the economic and social costs of commuting — and includes the car as well as the bus, subway and train?

Answer: Living on Planet Sucks and Rocks apparently means never having to engage your opponent’s actual argument. Or being respectful. Hell, you can even call an elderly woman the B-word. And wonder about her future safety. Cue the Deliverance banjos.

“While I don’t recommend reading the source article, for the same reason I wouldn’t recommend mailing a dollar bill to the North Korean Government, I’ve chosen to discuss it on TTAC today because it’s important to understand the mentality of people who push for outrageously oppressive anti-automobile regulation and taxation.”  –JB

“Luckily for these modern-day aristocrats, this isn’t pre-Revolutionary France, or even pre-Revolutionary America. But that’s subject to change, you know, and when that day comes and a nation full of hopeless, unemployed, desperate people makes a final journey into the cities to take what’s left, Ms. Brody shouldn’t be surprised if she’s one of the first ones up against the wall.”  –JB

“Are you saying you want me to cap this bitch? (just kidding, I’ve never shot a woman)”                 –JB comment response

Car and Driver editors will need to tone down the misogynistic language and throw in some citations from the Cato Institute, but otherwise Baruth is ready for prime time. He knows how to play the role of the biggest, baddest carnivorous beast in the realm.

Remember, though, that this is merely theater — in a low-grade burlesque kind of way — for auto industry insiders. Congratulations, Jack Baruth, for showing that you’ve got what it takes to please this crowd.

NOTES:

This essay was originally posted May, 24, 2014. Jack Baruth’s blog is discussed here. The lyrics to “You Gotta Get A Gimmick” are fun (go here).

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

RE:SOURCES

Society of Automotive Historians gives Indie Auto an award

Related Articles

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*