The truth about cut-and-spin journalism

March 22, 2014 Steve Media Analysis 0
A car dealer with balloons!

We have previously discussed how the relentless pressure for content at 24/7 automotive websites can lead to basic errors (go here). A more subtle but common problem is cut-and-spin journalism.

This is where a harried writer hammers out a summary that lacks adequate context, let alone any critical analysis, of an original story posted elsewhere. The writer instead focuses on boosting page hits by taking the most sensational story angle.

This phenomenon gets even more problematic when a writer summarizes another summary without fact checking — or even linking to the original piece.

More click-bait along life’s highway

This week The Truth About Cars posted a story by Cameron Miquelon (2014) that summarized a longer piece in AOL Autos by Michael Zak (2014). Both pieces discussed an annual study about the affordability of new cars published by Interest.com (Guillot, 2014).

Miquelon offered only a bare-bones overview and didn’t link to the actual study. Instead, the headline and graphic fixated on the study’s most inflammatory story angle: “Average Car Price Affordable Only To Washington, DC Customers.”

The AOL Autos story took a similar angle in its headline. However, its subhead more explicitly addressed the heart of the study: “Who Can Afford The Average Car Price? Only Folks In Washington, D.C.; Americans are spending far too much money on new cars.”

Part of the reason why AOL Autos and The Truth About Cars had trouble writing about automotive affordability could be because — oddly enough — they don’t have enough expertise in the topic.

The TTAC story was a rousing success — 223 comments were posted within 12 hours. In addition, TTAC staff who like to beat up on the government could presumably feel a sense of satisfaction in providing fresh meat for commentators to rail against the “great federal mammary gland” (Skink, 2014).

The result was a discussion that all too often shed more heat than light on a crucial issue for many car buyers.

I get that editorial budgets are tight enough that every story can’t receive the attention it deserves. However, this was a missed opportunity for TTAC to show how it is a more independent, consumer-oriented website than the likes of AOL Autos.

How TTAC could have gotten the story right

This isn’t rocket science; a decent third-year journalism student could sum up what TTAC should have done with this story.

  • Step 1: Thoroughly read Interest.com’s “2014 Car Affordability Study.”
  • Step 2: Link to it in the TTAC story.
  • Step 3: Focus on the most important news angle, which was that Americans are paying too much for new cars and trucks.
  • Step 4: Assess the study’s validity and its significance to consumers rather than fixating on Washington, D.C.’s high median income.

If Miquelon had done a careful read of the study he could have avoided repeating a problematic — and unattributed — statement in the AOL Autos story. Miquelon stated, “Experts recommend spending up (to) 20 percent of take-home pay on a vehicle purchase and subsequent payments.”

The auto buff media would rather talk about what’s under the hood than whether your dream car will undercut your financial viability.

TTAC commentator VoGo (2014) quite rightly responded: “I don’t know what kind of ‘experts’ are telling people to spend 20% of their take-home on a new car. Likely dealers whose ‘expertise’ is in selling new cars to people who can’t afford them.”

I can’t tell where AOL Autos came up with 20 percent, but it’s not in Interest.com’s study. Author Craig Guillot (2014) argued that you should “limit your principal, interest and insurance payments to 10% of your gross income.”

Focusing on fiscal health rather than auto-orgasms

Prominently linking to the study could have answered a number of methodological questions that lingered in the comment thread.

For example, Sirwired (2014) asked: “Why 48 payments? That was the ‘standard’ what, 30 years ago? . . . . If the article is trying to talk about ‘averages’ shouldn’t they also be using the average loan term, not just the average car price?”

The study recommended against loans longer than 48 months because they are “bigger wealth killers” (Guillot, 2014). These are strong words but reflective of Interest.com’s focus on helping people build their overall financial health.

Interest.com offers a calculator that shows the added cost of longer-term loans
Interest.com offers a calculator that shows the added cost of longer-term loans (go here).

“You can get a great car for much less (than $30,000 to $40,000) and use the savings to invest in yourself,” argued Interest.com Managing Editor Mike Sante. “Here’s where the money for your retirement or kids’ college can come from.”

Given the above, it makes sense that the headline for Interest.com’s story about its study took a consumerist angle: “Build financial security with a truly affordable car” (Guillot, 2014).

The study did point out that Washington, D.C. was the only American city out of the 25 largest where the “typical household” could afford the average price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. during 2013, which was $32,086. However, the primary goal of the exercise was to show how these cities varied both in their median income as well as auto-related costs such as sales taxes and insurance.

For each of the 25 cities the study showcased an affordable car, its purchase price, down payment and sales tax.

Interest.com loses credibility by not showing its work

Here is where some methodological questions could have been asked by TTAC. For example, the study states that there are “big differences” in costs among major cities due to both median household income as well as “a wide range of tax rates and insurance costs.”

Alas, the study does not show its work, such as with a table that allows an apples-to-apples comparison of tax and insurance rates by cities. That strikes me as odd given that this information is far more useful to an individual reader than the prominently displayed data on median household income.

What’s the point of knowing your city’s median income besides using it to critique the expensiveness of vehicles in your nearby parking lot?

TTAC commentator Vulpine (2014) was among those who questioned comparing median income and average vehicle price: “Let’s put it this way, ‘Average’ does not equal ‘Median’. I’d bet you’ll find that far more people are buying lower-priced cars than buying higher-priced to make that ‘Average.’ The Median is probably closer to that $25K range.”

I suspect that Interest.com used average rather than median vehicle price because the data was more readily available. However, a serious study would include a section that explained its methodology — and the caveats and limitations of its findings. Interest.com’s failure to do so will invariably lead to some dismissing the validity of the study.

For example, TTAC commentator Morea (2014) stated, “Using single-measure metrics (mean, median, mode, etc.) of undefined distribution functions is useless and a primary way that politicians, news agencies, and advocacy groups deceive the public.”

TTAC did do two things right

To be fair, I should give TTAC credit for two things. First, Miquelon did not follow in the footsteps of AOL Autos, which incorrectly used average and median interchangeably.

Second, even though AOL Autos offered a more detailed description of the study, the overall quality of its comment thread was much lower than TTAC’s. I suppose one could point to that as an excuse for business as usual at TTAC. Who needs quality writing when your commentators will bail you out — for free?

Perhaps in the short run. But you can only skate for so long before your “best and brightest” drift elsewhere. I’d argue that fewer but better-quality posts is the recipe for TTAC’s long-term success.

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

RE:SOURCES

PHOTOGRAPHY:

Related Articles

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*