Motorcyclist Magazine caves to advertiser pressure, fires Dexter Ford

I disagree with Mr. Pasterjak's take on what the magazine should do if a product is a piece of crap. While we all may be enthusiasts, as long as somebody is charging money for a product, an ethical journalist's responsibility is to tell us if it's a piece of crap. The journalist may consult the seller to see if there's a problem or if a fix is in the works, but the first responsibility is to the reader who paid for the publication and depends on it as a source of accurate information.

To get back to Catterson and Ford, I am having a little trouble understanding why the whole brouhaha came up. If Ford is a freelance writer, all Catterson had to do is not use him anymore if he was getting pressure from his bosses on the business side. Don't get me wrong, it's good to know which way Catterson bends in the business/editorial tug-of-war, but none of this had to come out if Ford is a true freelancer.

I agree w/ miketb,. Anytime ads dictate or sway the reporting, something isn't quite kosher.I agree, a writer(journalist, reporter, or whatever they want to be called) shouldn't have an agenda, but they do have the responsibility to report facts. And if a product is crap, they should say so. If the manufacturer wants a do over, fine, and report on that also. As a reader, I count on the professional opinion of the writer to help me decide where I'm going spend my money. If that writer is influenced by an editor or ad manager or ad salesman, that is just wrong. Of course this has nothing to do with the original topic. In that case, the editor was totally wrong, and should have manned up. After all, it was his choice to run the article. He made the decision to run it. A writer only writes. The writer doesn't decide magazine content.

I think you guys are mistaking good research with collusion. Our job is not to tell a good or a bad story, but to tell an accurate story. And an accurate story sometimes demands that a writer communicate with the original source to ensure accuracy. Not to give someone a "do-over" but to ensure that the story we're telling is accurate.

Planning an "ambush" is not the best first step in research.

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote: I think you guys are mistaking good research with collusion. Our job is not to tell a good or a bad story, but to tell an accurate story. And an accurate story sometimes demands that a writer communicate with the original source to ensure accuracy. Not to give someone a "do-over" but to ensure that the story we're telling is accurate. Planning an "ambush" is not the best first step in research. jg

All good points, JG, and I like your attitude towards the responsibilities of good journalists.

Seems like the "real" issue to be investigated is why Arai and Shoei felt compelled to influence the media with bullying tactics. Ford's original article focused on Snell testing methods and (after reading it), I didn't see any untoward accusation or innuendo pointing fingers at the manufacturers.

Did Arai and Shoei cave-in to pressure from the Snell Foundation? That looks like fertile ground to plow.

The main reason Arai and Shoei (and others, but they're the big guys) don't like Ford's Snell pieces is money. That little Snell sticker on the back of a helmet is worth an extra $100 on the retail price of a helmet. If that goes away, or if the Snell brand is eroded, Arai and Shoei are looking at big profit losses.

But, that issue boils down to laziness on everybody's part. If the manufacturers were willing to abandon Snell, or put pressure on them to make changes, they'd have to figure out a new easy way to inflate the price of their products.

I agree, the whole thing smacks of unpleasantness. I'll also agree with you that ambushing and being out to "get" someone is not a good thing, especially in a publication.

But I will disagree with you with regards to the proverbial piece of garbage (censored, due to work location).

By all means, contact the supplier of aformentioned piece of garbage and investigate as you describe. But, if in the end, you conclude that said item is indeed a piece of garbage you should say so. You do not do me, the reader, any good by hiding that information.

One of the things that has always seperated GRMS from most other auto rags is that you guys do real tests, and publish the results. Be they good or bad, pretty or ugly. If you change that so you only publish good things, and refuse to be completely honest and no longer tell us if an item is a piece of garbage, than GRMS is no better than MotorTrend, and not worth a subscription.

Decide for yourself which path you chose to take this magazine down. Perky fluff, or honest reporting. You cannot do both.

This kind of reminds me of a rumor that I heard about GRM receiving pressure from a certain company to not run an article about a locost tribute to their particular automobile. I don't know if this is even true or the ramifications of running said article, but I applaud you guys for taking the risks...

Anytime you put money in the picture, you berkeley it up. I linked an youtube interview with Toly a week or two ago in which he said something to the effect of "money will eventually ruin any sport" in regards to what happened to racing. It ain't just sports.

I observe things. I pay attention. Follow the money: A magazine (any real comercial magazine, not someone's private publication) needs readers. Readers mean the mag can sell advertising. Selling advertising means the magazine can employ people who can then make their mortgage payment to The Man and feed their rug rats. Selling magazines to the readers doesn't even cover the postage and printing costs, so the ad revenue is how the mag (and the people behind it) survive. The more readers a mag has, the more the mag can charge for advertising. Think of it as a per-reader ad rate. I'm sure that's overly simplified, but it's a working model, I think. The mag can't just print and give it away, because the readers it might have then are not of the same "quality" as readers like us who will actually spend our own money on it. The mag has to keep the advertisers happy or they won't buy ad space. The mag has to keep the readers happy or they won't read the magazine. No readers, no money for ads. No ads, no money for food and shelter. It's a balancing act. If the mag kisses the butts of the advertisers and glosses over serious problems or fluffs up junk, it goes the way of, say, SCC or Kit Car as the readers stop buying it (number of readers drops, can't get the ads, can't pay The Man for the mortgage). If the mag slams the advertisers, they don't buy more ad space, same problem. The mag has to try to find advertisers that have a quality product, and report on said products appropriately or the readers won't read the mag. As a side note, a company that is selling junk likely won't be around that long anyway and may leave the mag with an uncollectable debt. I'm sure there are plenty of examples. So, it really is in the magazine's best interest to not deal with pond scum, but it is difficult to tell what is what.

I think GRM does a wonderful job of balancing all this stuff, and that's why GRM is one of two magazines I actually subscribe to (not counting the NRA mag, which just comes along with the membership).

foxtrapper wrote: I agree, the whole thing smacks of unpleasantness. I'll also agree with you that ambushing and being out to "get" someone is not a good thing, especially in a publication. But I will disagree with you with regards to the proverbial piece of garbage (censored, due to work location). By all means, contact the supplier of aformentioned piece of garbage and investigate as you describe. But, if in the end, you conclude that said item is indeed a piece of garbage you should say so. You do not do me, the reader, any good by hiding that information. One of the things that has always seperated GRMS from most other auto rags is that you guys do real tests, and publish the results. Be they good or bad, pretty or ugly. If you change that so you only publish good things, and refuse to be completely honest and no longer tell us if an item is a piece of garbage, than GRMS is no better than MotorTrend, and not worth a subscription. Decide for yourself which path you chose to take this magazine down. Perky fluff, or honest reporting. You cannot do both.

When did I say we only want to publish good things? We only want to publish true things. Sometimes those true things are good, and sometimes they are not. It's our job to ensure that what we publish mirrors reality as closely as possible (unless it's one of my stories, then it's just fart jokes).

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote: (unless it's one of my stories, then it's just fart jokes)

The fark jokes aren't true?!

Xceler8x wrote:

JG Pasterjak wrote: (unless it's one of my stories, then it's just fart jokes)

The fark jokes aren't true?!

While many are based on actual incidents, not all are entirely factual. In some cases key details like duration, decibel level, cheekslap frequency and method of production have been changed, added or omitted. Sorry.

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote: When did I say we only want to publish good things? We only want to publish true things. Sometimes those true things are good, and sometimes they are not. It's our job to ensure that what we publish mirrors reality as closely as possible (unless it's one of my stories, then it's just fart jokes). jg

Great! I happily stand corrected.