This is the last automobile review that The New York Times will publish. The paper has shuttered their “Automobiles” section as part of a downsizing effort and has sent pretty much that entire department out with pink slips. The final chapter that the paper will put out is a review for the 2015 Ford Mustang written by Times and Car and Driver contributor John Pearley Huffman. Sure, he covers the EcoBoost automatic and the six-speed 5.0 GT, but that’s not the actual reason that you should read the article at all.
Huffman makes a great point in his review: “To discuss cars solely as consumer products or a regulatory challenge is to miss their essence; the aspirations, hopes and freedom they embody. It’s talking about cooking without considering flavor.” Whether you like or loathe the Times is now irreverent: what has happened is that a voice that speaks volumes about the how and why of our one shared feature-our love for the car-now has one less method to reach out to others, those who don’t understand it. That’s the real loss here.
Truly Bryan … that was a great review signaling a very sad ending ! With the NYTimes just now informing its subscribers as to its intent … all while raising the prices for 2015 and pushing for its customers to increase their subscription level !
Pay more … get less … and have one less needed voice on the horizon . Aint that the way of the world these days . Pay more .. get less … oh … and by the way … wouldn’t you like to up your subscription level .. to pay even more .. for less ? And a Merry ____ing Christmas to you NYTimes !
…as we sit here reading the internet…
So much for “All the news that’s fit to print”. As the BS beancounters well know, producing original content is expensive. NYT looked at its click per article count and decided Automotive didn’t make the cut.
Do not look at this in isolation. NYT has started its most massive round of layoffs ever, and notwithstanding poster #1’s rant they need more revenue to avoid the next round.
BS and other niche players have done so well they have drawn enough eyeballs away from general interest publications to force the redefinition of their mission.
I agree with Huffman. 100%. Too bad the rest of that crap paper is the way it is or I would have bought it more often.