Jump to content

THE TOYOTA STAR THINKS THIS IS FUNNY


Recommended Posts

post-436-1227742116_thumb.jpg

This is the daily cartoon in the Toronto Star today. I seriously have no idea how they find this $h! funny. This is Canada's biggest daily newspaper. Their hatred for Detroit knows no bounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
post-436-1227742116_thumb.jpg

This is the daily cartoon in the Toronto Star today. I seriously have no idea how they find this $h! funny. This is Canada's biggest daily newspaper. Their hatred for Detroit knows no bounds.

Is it just the auto industry or the whole region of SE Michigan in general?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They started hating Detroit a few years ago when the big whigs got in good with Toyota and got free Priuses for a year.

That's how Toyota does all of their media 'conquests' They befriend them, then make the relationship reciprocal. Said 'conquest' then feels obligated to take up the cause.

Just curious; did Detroit ever deny these people a manufacturing facility or something?

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Toronto Star would definitely be under the category of social liberals.

They hate cars in general, but hate GM the most because GM is the biggest and, of course, only builds SUVs. Toyota, on the other hand, builds only small, environmentally friendly vehicles ( I mean, Japanese people are so small and cute, aren't they?), so what harm can there be in supporting Toyota. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend, perhaps?)

I honestly have no clue what the editors of the Star think they are doing. Oshawa is on one side of Toronto and Oakville on the other, plus Brampton to the north-west. Magna's HQ is directly north of the city. Probably 2/3 of Canada's auto industry is within 20 minutes of Toronto's borders and 90% of those jobs are Big Three related. They are literally spitting in the face of a goodly chunk of their readership.

But then this is a newspaper that is rabidly pro-immigrant, and since 80% of Canada's immigration is from non-English speaking countries, this paper is signing its own suicide pact there, too.

For many Canadians, (and I don't think they are the majority yet), bashing America is a historical sport. Perhaps this goes back to the 1780s and the flight of the Empire Loyalists that populated Ontario after the American Revolution. Although the Star is not overtly anti-American, the Liberal party is closetly anti-American and the Star gives the Liberal party carte blanche on nearly all their political platforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, in the USA today wednesday they were talking about the Detroit Lions and why they were loosing in football. There was then a picture of an Edsel and a comment about the auto exec's asking for a bailout.

WTF does a 50 year old car have to do with a loosing football team?

Although I will admit I actually feel bad for Michigan and how badly they lost to Ohio State. I would have liked a close game much better.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Journalism' in the U.S. (and likely in Canada, also) has degraded into a toxic cess pool. You can almost smell the fear of creeping irrelevancy WRT shrinking marketshare and the flight to non-paper sources, and this is a prime example of that fear; hoping the 'shock factor' gets the name to buzz for an afternoon.

Not that they disbelieve it . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think thats sad? Watch this "CNN iReport":

Do the Big 3 Really Put Americans to Work?

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-154642?ref=feeds%2Foncnn

She doesn't even know what model it is, and she is shocked that a Ford can be built in Mexico (or so says "that thing" on the door!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is what 25 years of successful lobbying and strategic plant opening by Japan Inc has brought up to: the sheer obfuscation and confusion of the 'average' American/Canadian consumer.

If all of this is too much for the poor journalists to understand, then perhaps we should use a different measure: if you want to sell ONE car in this country, then you must build ONE car in this country. Pure, simple. That is why the Auto Pact came into being and perhaps we should return to that.

If this poor (and I suspect), blond woman cannot handle the fact that her Ford was 'assembled' in Mexico, then perhaps she should ask the question, 'how many Fords are sold in Mexico?' If Ford is successful in Mexico (and it is), then it is only reasonable that the Mexican people should get some of the spin off jobs, no?

If you buy a Toyota or Honda, you are buying a Japanese car. It doesn't f'ing matter if the windshields and tires come from North America and that the vehicle is slapped together in Allliston: IT IS JAPANESE. The profits go to Japan. The majority of the value-added jobs are in Japan. The rest is all smoke and mirrors.

And for those who do buy Japanese, IMO, they might as well just throw their money into that big money hole, because that is about how much good it does for our North American economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think thats sad? Watch this "CNN iReport":

Do the Big 3 Really Put Americans to Work?

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-154642?ref=feeds%2Foncnn

She doesn't even know what model it is, and she is shocked that a Ford can be built in Mexico (or so says "that thing" on the door!)

i couldnt help myself i just had to reply to that video... i mean really its a vehicle identification label sister but since you are doing that "report" in your driveway which looked to be beside a mill hill house i'll let that one slide.

Edited by cletus8269
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so disgusting it makes me want to puke! :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

$h!, the newspapers have been doing this for a long time. I remember seeing cartoons like this in the Houston Chronicle at various times throughout the 80s and 90s. It's nothing really that new - I remember people harping about how poorly built American cars were 20 and 30 years ago. I think these types of anti-Detroit, anti-domestic car cartoons and editorials tend to bubble to the surface whenever one of these companies are on the front pages. It's easy fruit to pick, and the morons at the papers get drunk on it all day long.

Again, this is why GM, Ford and Chrysler need to have better PR departments. You wouldn't see this kind of $h! if they did. They need to have savvy, competent PR experts camped out at places like CNN, FOX, New York Times, Toronto Star, etc, etc, - taking these people to dinner, talking up their new products and "green" intiatives, etc, etc...I'm sure they either don't do this, or just do a really $h!ty job at it. I think some articles have been written about it by Jerry Flint. (and I remember my late father, who used to work for GM, talking about it too)

Edited by gmcbob
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it were that simple, gmcbob, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than that. We are seeing the results of 30+ years of liberal arts graduates - these are now the guys/gals in charge of the media. I warrant you that NONE of them drive domestics. At best, they'd drive VWs or BMWs today. Most of them probably cut their teeth on their parents' early '80s Fairmont, Chevette, K-car, etc. and that is how they formed their opinions of Detroit.

We are brainwashed as children and young adults, quite literally. My dad always had Mopars when I was a kid, so my affinity was toward Mopars. He hated Ford, so I hated Ford. Similarly, if your mother/father had a Pontiac 6000 and constantly cursed its problems, while you sat in the back seat with your booster seat and pacifier, odds are you'll come out with a negative impression of GM.

Cars are like sports teams. People's emotional investment tends to be high, often unreasonable. Not everyone can easily transcend their experiences as youth to become 'thinking adults.' In some cases it may be nothing more complex than rebelling against one's parents: 'my parents always drove American cars, therefore American cars are bad.'

Our likes/dislikes are often colored in subtle ways. For example, if an otherwise nice American car has hard plastic on the dash, then that will become the focus of the biased critic. In some respects I think it is nothing more complicated than the fact that most Ford and GM products don't offer a manual shift. This is often a source of frustration for the 30-something car mag writer because he/she considers themself 'professional' drivers and they demand to be able to shift.

There are a myriad of reasons that Detroit has gotten to this point. It is so easy to blame them. Even purists are mad at them because they 'lost' so much market share. I prefer to congratulate them for the 40 year reign that they had. No other business in history has held onto the vice grip that GM and Ford had from '55 to '95. There is no shame in 20% market share; however, blaming Detroit for not downsizing fast enough, smart enough, fair enough or whatever is pointless. But what sells papers today and can make a politican his/her name is BLAME.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, this is why GM, Ford and Chrysler need to have better PR departments. You wouldn't see this kind of $h! if they did. They need to have savvy, competent PR experts camped out at places like CNN, FOX, New York Times, Toronto Star, etc, etc, - taking these people to dinner, talking up their new products and "green" intiatives, etc, etc...I'm sure they either don't do this, or just do a really $h!ty job at it. I think some articles have been written about it by Jerry Flint. (and I remember my late father, who used to work for GM, talking about it too)

I saw this at GM too......GM PR always viewed The Press as the "Bad Guy" that just hates domestic cars.....instead of trying to appeal to their sensabilties.....that plus the fact that a vast majority of GM's products deserved the harsh criticism they got.

So instead of taking dramatic measures to improve upon the product's deficiencies, they just "blamed" it on The Press.

GM is only now finally waking up to the notion of what producing a world-class product can do for them. Witness the glowing review of the CTS in this month's C&D ten-best list.....second year in a row for the Cadillac....when you are one of ten out of, how many models available in the U.S that qualify for that list.........that speaks scores.

Then, look at the Cobalt SS's strong third-place finish in that month's cheap speed comparo.....and that is from a car that began as a lacklustre little GM car in the first place. C&D's praise of the drivetrain, suspension, and overall performance was warranted. (As was their still harsh criticism of the interior.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. For all the hatred on here for the automotive press, when GM produces a vehicle that deserves praise, they get it.

Harsh, negative criticism of cars such as, oh, C&D's review of the current Impala SS a year or so ago can't be blamed on the automotive journalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are basically confirming my point: build cars that the media like and all the rest will follow suit? That's the same mentality that has led to the political mess we are in: the politicos only govern by poll; if something doesn't 'poll right,' they won't go ahead with it. That is not called leadership.

That is no way to run a government, and no way to run a car company. Other than the strides that GM has made in the 'appearance' of their interiors, I don't see the CTS as inherently superior to, say, the Impala SS. Ah, but it is RWD and available with a stick shift, thus proving my point.

I don't disagree that GM has failed in the PR department, but I guess in the modern world appearances are everything. Appear to be superior and it doesn't matter whether that's true or not. A solid feeling door handle trumps standard ABS. Simple, proven pushrods that get 30 mpg are 'inferior' to complex, more fragile DOHC engines. 3mm gap tolerances are more important than galvanized steel bodies.

I see. So it is important for GM to build vehicles that look good on paper (Honda), win the approval of the car critics (VW) and appear to be quality made (Toyota.)

I understand now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"I've said it before and I'll say it again. For all the hatred on here for the automotive press, when GM produces a vehicle that deserves praise, they get it."<<

Within the couple pages of that article, maybe so. Let's go farther.

The opposite creeps into unrelated pieces consisantly. Ever read a comment in a honda article about how '70s-early '80s honda's began rotting within months of being bought? Or a reference to chain drive in the 1960s? No you don't.

Ever read a 21st century review that mentions the Vega, Pinto, Edsel, 'floaty wallowy land yachts', 5 MPG, tailfins, etc, etc, etc? Countless times. How about loose references to the 'crappy cars Detroit built' for the last '10', '20', '30', '40', or '50' years? That number jumps all over the place and lumps the 120-some domestic model in a given year all under 1 umbrella. It 'sets the stage' in the subconscious that even the current praise-worthy vehicle is a singular fluke, an abnormality in a sea of The Usual. This is where 'journalism' falls flat in it's duty to be factual, accurate & informative, instead of lazy, slanderous & stereotypical. The current article is but 1 piece- the 'hate' covers a much broader behavioral pattern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see. So it is important for GM to build vehicles that look good on paper (Honda), win the approval of the car critics (VW) and appear to be quality made (Toyota.)

I understand now.

...far better than most people.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"I've said it before and I'll say it again. For all the hatred on here for the automotive press, when GM produces a vehicle that deserves praise, they get it."<<

Within the couple pages of that article, maybe so. Let's go farther.

The opposite creeps into unrelated pieces consisantly. Ever read a comment in a honda article about how '70s-early '80s honda's began rotting within months of being bought? Or a reference to chain drive in the 1960s? No you don't.

Ever read a 21st century review that mentions the Vega, Pinto, Edsel, 'floaty wallowy land yachts', 5 MPG, tailfins, etc, etc, etc? Countless times. How about loose references to the 'crappy cars Detroit built' for the last '10', '20', '30', '40', or '50' years? That number jumps all over the place and lumps the 120-some domestic model in a given year all under 1 umbrella. It 'sets the stage' in the subconscious that even the current praise-worthy vehicle is a singular fluke, an abnormality in a sea of The Usual. This is where 'journalism' falls flat in it's duty to be factual, accurate & informative, instead of lazy, slanderous & stereotypical. The current article is but 1 piece- the 'hate' covers a much broader behavioral pattern.

I couldn't agree with you more, balthazar. If anything the press is becoming much MORE biased as time goes on.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see. So it is important for GM to build vehicles that look good on paper (Honda), win the approval of the car critics (VW) and appear to be quality made (Toyota.)

Well....let's look at your statement.

Tell my why GM shouldn't build vehicles that look good on paper, win the approval of car critics, and appear to be quality made?

What's wrong with any of these three things to begin with?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well....let's look at your statement.

Tell my why GM shouldn't build vehicles that look good on paper, win the approval of car critics, and appear to be quality made?

What's wrong with any of these three things to begin with?

Or....put another way.....if the automotive press strongly influences so many of the buying habits of consumers in this country, as so many of you ascertain that they do, then logic dictates if GM wants to sell more cars, they better damn well do whatever it takes to find themselves in the good graces of that very group of journalists.....

If that means building cars the journo's will like more, so they can "influence" more people to buy them, then so be it.....

(Or at least the auto journo's need to be taken a little more seriously, for right or for wrong, than what GM has taken them.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the auto rags are setting preferences, or merely echoing them (meanwhile reinforcing them).

But I believe you're right, OC; appealing to these hack shlubs is probably the best course of action. The question is, can even the most stellar vehicle eclipse the ingrained opinion they almost all carry WRT the rest of the catalog?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the media hacks are a capricious lot. Secondly, they are jaded. I lump them in the same category as movie critics: after you've been forced to watch 10,000 movies, it takes the Second Coming of Jesus to grab their attention. The media types are human and already have their built in prejudices, reinforced by the liberal pablum shovelled out in most college classes for the past 30 some odd years. A lot of those chickens are coming home to roost because of the lax liberal thinking that has been allowed to permeate society.

Back to autos, I would cite the outrageous horsepower wars of the past 15 years, sparked by BMW and others, which have culminated in minivans with nearly 300 hp. Silly and outrageous. This frivilous pursuit only managed to draw the ire of the non-automotive media, which naturally attack GM because they are (were?) the biggest.

And OC, read my post again: I am talking about where auto companies spend their development dollars. There is a world of difference between a door handle that 'feels' solid and one that is actually solid. VW has proven that time and time again: suckers line up to buy their German engineering but the cars fall apart. The Cavalier may have not been the most solid looking car (panel gaps, ugly seats, etc) but the damn things are virtually bulletproof. Chrysler under Lutz spent a ton of money making the Intrepids, etc. LOOK and FEEL great, but they turned out to be pieces of crap on the road.

I've used the point of the last generation J-car against the then current Corolla time and time again. After the '03 refresh, the Cavalier was a much better car than the Corolla, and I often proved that by the back to back comparisons I would do between the two with customers, but the mags (especially CR, who clearly never even bothered to drive the '03 when they trashed it) had such a hate-on about the Cavalier because of its (previous) lack of DOHC engine, semi-independent rear suspension, etc. that they couldn't look beyond that.

Appearance over substance. GM spends the money on things that count, like automatic headlights, clutch lockout on their standard trannies (I got run over by a '01 Corolla when a customer 'jackrabbit started' it) and a host of other features that people appreciate after living with the car. DOHC engines, 15 spd transmissions, etc. only matter to self-appointed car experts and their added costs don't always reap the expected benefits.

Many of us on C&G need to step back and look at an automobile the way a layperson does: 4 black tires, a body and an engine. All the rest is Madison Avenue BS. You don't wanna know how many oldsters drive the Malibu and don't like it. They are being brainwashed that this is the way automotive design is going (no bench seats, no column shift, no soft, smooth ride) and many don't like it. Their 30-something old spawn pull up in their Audi and convince gramps that the Accord or Malibu are better than the Impala. Better exactly how? And for whom?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well....let's look at your statement.

Tell my why GM shouldn't build vehicles that look good on paper, win the approval of car critics, and appear to be quality made?

What's wrong with any of these three things to begin with?

I see CARBIZ's point. Many of the qualities that the magazines use in a review are superficial?

On the other hand, people buy cars for superficial reasons.

Manual transmissions are essential for a good review of a sport sedan, but very few are sold. I hazard a guess that a manual CTS will sit on the dealer lot for months until the one stick-shift enthusiast comes in to buy one. Yet, the majority of the tests I've seen are of the manual version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...