Detroit News auto reviewer Scott Burgess in better days, behind the wheel.
After initially agreeing it erred, but failing to fall on its sword, the Detroit News has issued a full apology to both its readers and the writer whose review was altered to satisfy an angry advertiser.
Presenting a reviewer’s “unvarnished opinion,” is essential, declared Publisher Jonathan Wolman, who added that advertisers should not be allowed to influence the news process.
The flap has given another black eye to a newspaper that has itself been hammered by critics, and which has seen its readership fall by roughly two-thirds over the past decade.
The widely-discussed incident was touched off when veteran auto critic Scott Burgess published a scathing review of the new Chrysler 200, earlier this month. That generated a strident response from an as yet-unnamed advertiser (though sources stress that it was not the automaker itself).
In turn, when the paper readied the review for its online version Burgess was asked to soften some of his harsher comments.
Detroit News Publisher Jonathan Wolman apologizes to readers and reviewer Scott Burgess.
While the critic, a former writer for the military’s Stars and Stripes newspaper, initially agreed, he ultimately balked and quit over the idea of advertisers calling the shots on reviews. It is unclear whether the version of the Chrysler 200 article that was initially posted was additionally softened by Detroit News editors after Burgess left but it was clearly not the same story that first appeared in print.
Burgess took his case public, among other things appearing on the Autoline After Hours webcast, where he said, “I quit because of the motivation behind the editing.” (To view the Autoline episode, Click Here.)
Now, it appears, the paper agrees. Detroit News officials initially tried to say they had erred, but without actually saying Burgess was right and that their actions were a serious breach of the trust readers deserve.
In today’s paper, however, a Publisher’s Note from editor and publisher Jonathan Wolman no longer minces words.
“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,” Wolman writes.
“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.”
Interestingly, a typically blunt Burgess review of the Kia Optima has been posted to the DetNews.com, the Detroit News website. It describes the midsize sedan as “not quite ready for prime time.”
(To read the full Detroit News Publisher’s Note, Click Here.)
Attempts to reach Burgess and the paper have so far been unsuccessful. It is unclear whether he has been asked to – or would – reconsider a return to the paper.
“I hope they can patch things up and that Scott will go back to the News,” said Autoline host John McElroy.
Getting Burgess back could be good for the paper, which has steadily lost readership, especially after its decision, a few years back, to go to a limited publishing schedule, with a daily online edition but print copies distributed to homes and offices only three days a week.
Meanwhile, it is clear that the Burgess incident has put the subjects of media accuracy and integrity onto the front burner. The issue has been simmering as the Internet becomes more and more important to the news gathering and distribution process – and as a variety of “new media” supplement and, in many cases replace, traditional news outlets.
As TheDetroitBureau.com noted on Friday, the Detroit News flap raises the question of whether “old-media” journalists are held to a somewhat different standard than new media critics. The other issue that comes into play revolves around how much influence carmakers have over reviewers generally, a debate which has simmered for years. (Click Here for our earlier report.)
That is not a subject limited to the domestic industry. Members of TheDetroitBureau.com team have, during their long careers, been subject to pressure at various times from both Detroit makers and imports. In decades past, industry giants General Motors and Toyota were notorious for at least threatening to pull advertising if they felt wronged by a review – though both makers have since backed away from such a heavy-handed approach.
In some cases, makers will avoid getting involved hoping (or encouraging) dealers to act on their behalf. Auto advertising has traditionally been a mainstay for local newspapers, like the News. And though dealers have often shifted to online marketing, their budgets are still a significant source of local media dollars.
Officially, dealer groups insist that, like automakers, they do not encourage dealers to try to influence editorial policy.
The controversy over the role advertisers play in reviews has only heated up during the Internet era. Many publications are underfunded, and often depend on free or low-cost reviews from writers who hope to curry favor with makers to get invited onto driving events, for example. A number of automotive sites view themselves as little more than a conduit between consumers and dealers and/or automakers, and thus justify softballing their coverage of new products.
The controversy over Burgess’ specific review is certain to fade but the larger questions will certainly linger.