The comment thread in our Frank Peiler story has morphed into a more general discussion about Collectible Automobile magazine and the state of the auto history media. I am front-paging Geeber’s comment because it presents some important context and offers an interesting idea.
Part of the challenge here is the format of Collectible Automobile. The magazine’s articles focus on a particular model, to the point that the articles now drill down to a particular generation of a model. (In the early days, some articles focused on one model, and the article covered all of the generations – for example, the Buick Century from 1936 through 1958.)
With that format, a more in-depth analysis of how the model fared compared to the competition, and why it was compromised by various decisions makers, is certainly plausible. A perfect example is your critique of the magazine’s article on the 1971-78 Cadillac Eldorado. The points you suggested make perfect sense, would make the articles more interesting and would be easy to incorporate in the magazine’s present format.
The magazine, in its present format, is not equipped to explore why the U.S. auto industry was on the ropes by the early 21st century. That requires a detailed look at labor-management relations; the location of Big Three headquarters in one region; the response of the industry to regulatory mandates; and the capture of the executive suite by those with a finance background, as opposed to an engineering or manufacturing background.
Some vehicles stand out as particularly awful and are symptoms of those issues – the Chevrolet Vega and GM X-cars, for example – but those subjects require articles specifically devoted to that particular topic. Incorporating that type of article into the magazine would greatly change its character, so I can understand why the editors would be reluctant to do so.
That type of article would be a better fit for a revived Automobile Quarterly or a magazine that tackles each issue with the thoroughness of David Halberstam’s The Reckoning (1986). Those articles don’t require lots of high-quality photos of beautifully restored old cars, however, which is one of the big attractions of Collectible Automobile.
RE:SOURCES
- Halberstam, David; 1986. The Reckoning. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY.
Indie Auto invites your comments (see below) or letters to the editor (go here). Letters may be lightly edited for style.
I think it is quite unfair to expect Collectible Car to take some wider look. Their focus is on recognizing their subject car in a favorable understanding of it. Consider that their audience haves a collector mentality. While any of us may look at some car as being total turd their approach is to explore that car in a respectful manner. They can put it into the context of its competitors, its timing, its development trials and tribulations but it will always be respectful of that car.
Jeff, Collectible Automobile and its book-publishing arm are a powerful enough player in American automotive history that their journalistic standards can cast a long shadow over the rest of the field. As such, I think they are fair game for feedback.
Media criticism stories at Indie Auto don’t typically get much readership but I do them because 1) media accountability is important and 2) no one else has taken up this role with any consistency.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I think Collectible Automobile will change. They seem quite comfortable with the niche they have carved out. Geeber seems to also hold that view — thus his idea for a new publication that takes historical analysis more seriously.
Note that the debate we are having is endemic across the American media. Pretty much everywhere there is a tension between elevating journalistic standards and making that cash register ring. What I think makes automotive history a little different is that the commercial media play an outsized role in the field. This is primarily because automotive history does not seem to have developed much of a foothold in academia. As a result, the field lacks an analytical foundation (go here for further discussion).
I would go as far as to say that substantive automotive history is a dying field. I think that’s tragic because the lessons of the past can still inform the decisions we as a society make about transportation in the present and future.
Thank you for the kind words. If I didn’t have two kids and a mortgage, I could explore this path, although launching any new print magazine is a risky venture these days.
Geeber, it’s probably better that you haven’t taken the risk of launching a publication given all of the factors that work against their success. The electronic revolution has not been kind to the print media, but the dirty little secret of this business is that smaller-scale publications have always been an iffy proposition.
One way to address gaps in the commercial media’s coverage of automotive history could be for more people to support the Society of Automotive Historians.
I launched Indie Auto as a way to make a contribution to the discussion without getting in too deep — both financially as well as with time commitments. That has resulted in journalistic compromises, e.g., I do very little primary research. I figured that a modest contribution was better than none at all.