Thread: Detroit News auto critic calls the new Chrysler 200 a POS and.....

Perfect example of ALL media today and why it's all bullshit driven by ad dollars and politics.

I don't listen to anything anyone tells me anymore because there is usually a selish motive behind it, and thats sad.

m ostly
o ld
p eople
a nd
r ednecks

lol

I don't know anything about the car in question. Nor do I know anything about the author.

However, what they took about was pretty unprofessional, even if it is true.

But no number of LEDs can hide a profile that looks like a loggerhead turtle. If this car came in tortoise shell, the EPA would have to put it on the endangered sedan list to prevent trappers and automotive enthusiasts from rightfully shooting it into extinction.

Of course, tortoise shell would look nice in the much improved interior.

It should come as no surprise that I'm against censorship and towing the corporate line, but that's not what this is. Being a 138 year old publication, I'm sure they try to strike a dignified image. What was removed would be more at home in a low-end street racing mag.

theres a reason Chrysler got bought out,they put out hot flaming pos on wheels.

the media are just a bunch of fear-mongering liars with hidden agendas.

I still own a The first adn last Chrysler car a 2005 pacifica. I would never buy another Chrysler again. Under powered parts are very expensive. They wanted 231.00 dollars for a windo swithc for a rear door!. The internal trim peices fall off.

At least the Author of the storey had balls enough to stand up for what he wrote.

And The Editor was a day late and a writer short with the appoligy.

Well now he can start a blog and people will trust that he's giving an honest review....good for him not wanting to look like a corporate shill.

chrysler blows at making cars. the only recent car made from one of it's subsidiary's that was any good was the Dodge Viper all the rest, junk.

Detroit News has changed its tune.

Publisher's note: Reviewers' independence key

To our readers:

I want to share with you an episode that occurred last week which has sparked a vigorous discussion in our newsroom about the need to ensure the independence of our reviewers. Indeed, I owe our readers an explanation and an apology for the lapse that raised questions about our credibility.

Detroit News reviews run the gamut from cultural performances to restaurant dining, from computer gaming to auto introductions. Our writers are expert in their areas of interest, allowing them to write freely with authority and flair — and their well-informed perspective contributes much to our pages and to our online sites. We give our reviewers broad latitude to establish their personal "voice," even as we edit their drafts for clarity and readability and accuracy and fundamental fairness.

A few days ago, our auto reviewer, Scott Burgess, resigned in frustration after he was asked to change several passages of his review of the new Chrysler 200. This occurred after an advertiser complained that some material in the review was acerbic and disrespectful. The review had already appeared in our newspaper "Drive" section but we asked Scott to soften a few passages in the online version. The review was sharply critical of the 200 and there was no effort to change Scott's verdict or his reasoning.

While our intent was to improve the piece by making these passages less grating, our decision to make these changes after fielding an advertiser's complaint was a humbling mistake. As publisher and editor, I want to apologize to our readers and of course to Scott. Once the review was published we should have maintained the wording in all our formats and avoided any sense that we were acting at the influence of any interest aside from our readers' interest.

Why is that so important? The credibility of our journalism is our calling card to your doorstep and your digital screen. We simply cannot act at any behest but yours and we must avoid any appearance to the contrary.

It is a fact of life that our reviews will sometimes ruffle commercial feathers. For example, in our On Screen section Friday, one of our movie reviews appeared under the headline, "'Kaboom' is incompetent, absurd." Whether we are reviewing a movie or a new Thai restaurant or a $90,000 sportster, our readers must be certain they have the author's unvarnished opinion, free of any commercial or outside consideration. That's our ongoing commitment.

Jonathan Wolman
Editor and Publisher

From http://detnews.com/article/20110319/...8/1148/auto01/