automotive editorial standards

[Brett Dikeman]

At 11:03 PM -0800 1/28/04, Michael McLaughlin wrote:
>As someone in the newspaper business, I feel the need to point out 
>that most automotive content in newspapers is produced by the 
>advertising/promotional people, which should explain the (typically 
>gushing) focus of the content. Very few newspapers have actual 
>journalism folks covering the automotive world; Royal Ford's 
>position is a rarity.
>
>Yes, he did screw up. And yes, it's something that he certainly 
>shouldn't have screwed up. But please be understanding and at least 
>a little forgiving -- at most people's jobs, when there is an error, 
>it's not seen by thousands or millions of people, nor do people call 
>or e-mail to point it out.

As you're in the newspaper business, you should also have mentioned 
that Royal Ford has an editor, and The Boston Globe is one of the 
largest newspapers on the east coast, second only to the NY 
Times(which owns the Globe now).  Ie- they have plenty of resources 
for proofreaders.

It's an unforgivable mistake because your basic motorhead knows 
rather well that BMW has RARELY turbocharged an engine.  They'd also, 
of course, know that the 1.8t is a VAG engine.

It wasn't a typo.  It was a "I don't know about the automotive 
industry to realize my mistake AND I don't give a crap enough about 
my work to proofread my articles before sending them out to a million 
plus readers despite working for the second largest paper in the 
entire east coast."

If this had been any other subject matter, they would have released 
an editorial apology.  I rest my case about automotive editorial 
standards being crap.

Brett
-- 
----
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/