Shocking development on "Worst Car" Yahoo article

I have seen the same behavior on MSN auto. When they were doing the 'cut and paste' 2013 pickup truck review, they listed the base drivetrain of the 2013 Ram 1500 as the old 3.7L and 4-speed automatic.
No fact-checking or editorial review, no objectivity, no credibility. I can't be bothered with what they think that they think.





















1ya·hoo
noun \ˈyā-(ˌ)hü, ˈyä-\
plural yahoos















Definition of YAHOO

1
capitalized : a member of a race of brutes in Swift'sGulliver's Travels who have the form and all the vices of humans


2
[influenced by 2yahoo] : a boorish, crass, or stupid person
— ya·hoo·ism noun


See yahoo defined for English-language learners »



Examples of YAHOO

1. Some yahoo cut me off in traffic.
2. A bunch of yahoos were making noise outside.

Aren't we getting a little bit carried away in the Yahoo! bashing?

Besides, it's just a listing by one individual, on the internet, in the form of an article. Earth-shattering, it is NOT.

And like it or not, there IS a case to say that the Dodge Avenger is a weak competitor. In order to make that case, one must ignore differences in price between competing vehicles. What makes the Avenger competitive at all is that you get a LOT of car, and sometimes engine, for the money.

But if you ignore the money aspect, then let's face it--the Avenger IS worse than the others mentioned. I've rented multiple Foci and Avengers, etc. And the Avenger IS worse in how it drives than the Focus. And it IS worse than the Dart, too. But guess what? Both of those cars feel smaller, yet often cost more.

So it all depends on what is important to the purchaser. A lot of people care most about a couple of thousand dollars when buying a car. Others care less about that (I, for example, am one of them...I generally own my cars for 10+ years. I'd rather spend more on a smaller Dart that I will enjoy more over a very long time, than on a larger Avenger, which might save me an average of $200/year over the life of the car). I'm obviously in the minority, if you look at Avenger vs. Dart sales.

BUT NEITHER POSITION IS NECESSARILY RIGHT OR WRONG.

eastcoaster said:

Aren't we getting a little bit carried away in the Yahoo! bashing?

Besides, it's just a listing by one individual, on the internet, in the form of an article. Earth-shattering, it is NOT.

...
BUT NEITHER POSITION IS NECESSARILY RIGHT OR WRONG.

Click to expand...

This doesn't discount the fact that Yahoo is desperately trying to generate clicks however possible.

Let's face it: automotive writers and publications are in the business of picking winners and losers, and a Chrysler vehicle at the bottom of the rankings is almost a cliché. This lack of general respect for Chrysler leaves its products exposed to getting bashed by "media" outlets looking for attention.

I'd argue Avenger is no worse than Corolla, yet the media always finds something redeeming to say about a Toyota, no matter how crummy it may be. Well-established consumer trust helps Toyota shield its products from most criticism.

Until Chrysler earns a basic level of consumer trust, its products will be easy pickings for any publication --including Consumer Reports-- looking to drive the number of clicks up.

Dave said:

"it's just a listing by one individual, on the internet, in the form of an article"

That's like saying a front page story in the New York Times is just some prose by one individual, on recycled paper towels, in the form of an article.

Click to expand...

I think I agree with you, but probably not for the reasons you had in mind. Recently, the NYT has had a long string of articles where they either didn't do their homework or (possibly) outright cheated, plagiarized or lied. I personally no longer trust them as an accurate news source without further verification--and that has NOTHING to do with their editorial slant (in which I haven't particularly noticed much of a change)--it has everything to do with their sloppy journalism.

Both the NYT and the Corolla are riding on their historical reputations. And the fact that the Avenger never changed names (the way the 200 did) might be contributing to its problems, albeit in the opposite direction.

But I guess MY point is that you cannot trust anything you read these days without doing your own due diligence. Sources, from Yahoo! to the NYT, are all using "sensationalist" techniques to drum up readers (remember the Tesla controversy?).

And that while we might not agree with putting the Avenger on the list, when viewed from a certain set of criteria (albeit not necessarily ours), it's not completely out of the realm of possibilities that it could be rated the worst in its class. There's a REASON the 200 is being replaced next year (and hopefully the Avenger soon afterwards)!

We have to remember that "worst in class" doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad car. Midsize is a highly competitive segment.

Let's not forget, we ALL have the tendency to correlate long-in-the-tooth with "bad choice." With the few exceptions (Miata, Accord, etc.), the car that came out the latest is always assumed to be better. And the Avenger is getting quite old.

The Avenger is a spectacular value! Lots of car for the price. I'd definitely consider the refreshed Avenger. But why is it such a spectacular value? Because the demand is elsewhere...looking for the Mazda 6, Accord, Fusion, Sonata, and Optima. All cars that win over the Avenger in comparisons. Pricing doesn't change the car.

My point is that the Avenger is not a bad car by any means. However, the competition is tough and fresher. It's a little sensational to call this article sensationalism.