When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was always put off as well by Top Gear's hosts making fun of so much that is American, apparently forgetting that millions of Americans were watching. I know it was mostly for laughs but you know they
said a lot of things in a way to show superiority. They made fun of what we do as Americans, Clarkson always called us fat while being overweight himself, made fun of what we drive typically referring to large vehicles (something we should be proud of), etc... Hey Clarkson, wanna compare America's accomplishments with Great Britain's? We've done 1000X more.
I wouldn't move to Great Britain even if someone gave me $1 million to start a life there. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Sadly, it's the P. Hiltons of this world that get the ink regarding their new car purchases. "Daddy, get me a new one, this one's ashtray's full!"
You can bet b/f didn't get his money's worth on that one.
There are far too many people writing reviews for magazines and newspapers - the vast majority of whom must kowtow to sensitivities of the manufacturer. These reviews are basically just reading the company literature - as I said ten years ago, they are valentines written to please the company's advertising flacks. C/D published an article many years ago about the problems faced by the automotive press, the largest of which was procuring cars for testing. If your publication wasn't necessarily kind to the marque in its latest review, you might not be near the head of the line for testing their next offering. That was simply the way it worked - you play the game or you get all that expensive advertising pulled. Without all those car ads, you're broke in 30 days.
CR buys cars from local dealers for their tests, and that makes their reviews credible. They owe nothing to the manufacturer - after all, they're reviewing their OWN car. The problem is that CR has no soul. Their testers in white lab coats carry clipboards on which they check the boxes and rate value as a function of cost, maintenance, and insurance - they don't take into account the pure exhilaration of putting a sporting vehicle - or at least ones with sporting pretensions - through their paces. It's like judging a horse from the rail. If you don't or can't ride it competently, how can you expect to report on the nuances of the experience? If cars could be reduced to numbers; if we could judge on the basis of resale value, insurance cost, maintenance expense, and fuel consumption, then the 4-cyl Accord would win every contest hands down. But while many people purchase a car as an appliance, enthusiasts do not.
OK, we recognize the fact that a Ferrari is totally impractical, but we all want one anyway. That doesn't mean we're all going to mortgage the house and sell our firstborn to acquire one, but it's all about the unreachable goal. Like Playboy. That centerfold may be gorgeous, might even be an incredibly athletic bed-partner, but she can't cook, lives like a total pig, spends money like it was water, is totally and completely unfaithful, and has the intellect of a raisin . . . still we lust after her. Would we want to be married to her? Not on your life! Most of us have reached the stage of maturity that we can discern the difference between fantasy and reality. You can live with reality and be extremely happy. The other choice is misery.
There is certainly a place for plain-jane road tests - and I'll go to those when I'm seriously ready to buy a car, I'll pick up a copy of CR or maybe one of the "automotive" mags. But for entertainment, I'd much rather read a piece by a writer/enthusiast rather than an engineer or an accountant. They just don't sing. I can read a spec sheet for myself. Don't tell me about the number of gears in the transmission, let me experience shifting them - even if it's only vicariously. Whether you're going to drive the Going-to-the-Sun Road, carve the Kern River Canyon, or just take a test drive out on the two-lane, take me along.
Sadly, it's the P. Hiltons of this world that get the ink regarding their new car purchases. "Daddy, get me a new one, this one's ashtray's full!"
You can bet b/f didn't get his money's worth on that one.
I'm sure she gave him his "reward"............and we all know what that was
There are far too many people writing reviews for magazines and newspapers - the vast majority of whom must kowtow to sensitivities of the manufacturer. These reviews are basically just reading the company literature - as I said ten years ago, they are valentines written to please the company's advertising flacks.
The ones in the newspapers are generally worse than the ones in the magazines....which do offer some credibility. I got to where I simply quit reading most of the newspaper reviews..........they were a waste of time.
C/D published an article many years ago about the problems faced by the automotive press, the largest of which was procuring cars for testing. If your publication wasn't necessarily kind to the marque in its latest review, you might not be near the head of the line for testing their next offering. That was simply the way it worked - you play the game or you get all that expensive advertising pulled. Without all those car ads, you're broke in 30 days.
Auto companies can shoot themselves in the foot by doing that, though. if they WANT a better review next time from that magazine, then they have to have sample test-models available, no matter what kind of review they got last time.
CR buys cars from local dealers for their tests, and that makes their reviews credible. They owe nothing to the manufacturer - after all, they're reviewing their OWN car. The problem is that CR has no soul. Their testers in white lab coats carry clipboards on which they check the boxes and rate value as a function of cost, maintenance, and insurance - they don't take into account the pure exhilaration of putting a sporting vehicle - or at least ones with sporting pretensions - through their paces. It's like judging a horse from the rail. If you don't or can't ride it competently, how can you expect to report on the nuances of the experience? If cars could be reduced to numbers; if we could judge on the basis of resale value, insurance cost, maintenance expense, and fuel consumption, then the 4-cyl Accord would win every contest hands down. But while many people purchase a car as an appliance, enthusiasts do not.
CR, in the last couple of years, has begun noting driving-fun in sports-oriented vehicles. They aren't Patrick Bedard or Csaba Csede by any means, but neither are they quite the same old CR ether.
There is certainly a place for plain-jane road tests - and I'll go to those when I'm seriously ready to buy a car, I'll pick up a copy of CR or maybe one of the "automotive" mags.
Like a number of people here in CAR CHAT, Bob, you're knowledge enough that you could probably evaluate a vehicle yourself as well or better as CR or the mags. CR does, however, provide a critically important service, something that they are one of the best at........the vehicle reliaibility charts.
I was always put off as well by Top Gear's hosts making fun of so much that is American, apparently forgetting that millions of Americans were watching. I know it was mostly for laughs but you know they
said a lot of things in a way to show superiority. They made fun of what we do as Americans, Clarkson always called us fat while being overweight himself, made fun of what we drive typically referring to large vehicles (something we should be proud of), etc... Hey Clarkson, wanna compare America's accomplishments with Great Britain's? We've done 1000X more.
I wouldn't move to Great Britain even if someone gave me $1 million to start a life there. Or anywhere else for that matter.
The worst one was a contrived and silly episode where they went to Alabama and painted slogans on the side of their cars, while dressed up as stereotypical southerners. The whole thing was offensive on several levels and they soon found themselves in trouble at a gas station.
Point being that they had the audacity and typical Brit arrogance, to come to the States and insult an entire nation to tap into anti-American feelings in Britain. They did the same in Argentina and in India. Insulting local culture while parading around with a multi-million dollar budget funded by the British taxpayer.
If Top Gear had stuck to its original premise of doing weird, off the wall wonky stunts with cars that people admire, that would have been one thing. Instead they descended to the lowest common denominator. Luckily they imploded and that's a good thing.
The worst one was a contrived and silly episode where they went to Alabama and painted slogans on the side of their cars, while dressed up as stereotypical southerners. The whole thing was offensive on several levels and they soon found themselves in trouble at a gas station.
Point being that they had the audacity and typical Brit arrogance, to come to the States and insult an entire nation to tap into anti-American feelings in Britain. They did the same in Argentina and in India. Insulting local culture while parading around with a multi-million dollar budget funded by the British taxpayer.
If Top Gear had stuck to its original premise of doing weird, off the wall wonky stunts with cars that people admire, that would have been one thing. Instead they descended to the lowest common denominator. Luckily they imploded and that's a good thing.
I guess that's why Top Gear is the top rated automotive show in history!
There are far too many people writing reviews for magazines and newspapers - the vast majority of whom must kowtow to sensitivities of the manufacturer. These reviews are basically just reading the company literature - as I said ten years ago, they are valentines written to please the company's advertising flacks. C/D published an article many years ago about the problems faced by the automotive press, the largest of which was procuring cars for testing. If your publication wasn't necessarily kind to the marque in its latest review, you might not be near the head of the line for testing their next offering. That was simply the way it worked - you play the game or you get all that expensive advertising pulled. Without all those car ads, you're broke in 30 days.
Well established magazines are not susceptible to loaner boycotts, nor do they look for opportunitys to report random imperfections in individual examples of a manufacturers product line.
CR buys cars from local dealers for their tests, and that makes their reviews credible. They owe nothing to the manufacturer - after all, they're reviewing their OWN car. The problem is that CR has no soul. Their testers in white lab coats carry clipboards on which they check the boxes and rate value as a function of cost, maintenance, and insurance - they don't take into account the pure exhilaration of putting a sporting vehicle - or at least ones with sporting pretensions - through their paces. It's like judging a horse from the rail. If you don't or can't ride it competently, how can you expect to report on the nuances of the experience? If cars could be reduced to numbers; if we could judge on the basis of resale value, insurance cost, maintenance expense, and fuel consumption, then the 4-cyl Accord would win every contest hands down. But while many people purchase a car as an appliance, enthusiasts do not.
I have personally prepped several press fleet vehicles for CR evaluation loans. They don't buy all their test vehicles. You may recall a Tesla I think that broke down during delivery to CR. I do agree with your opinion of CR review criteria.
I guess that's why Top Gear is the top rated automotive show in history!
I suppose there was an element of ridiculousness to their antics that drew a huge audience. But it doesn't change the fact that it was not automotive journalism. They were personalities spouting off opinions in between nice visuals and stunts cooked up by their producers.
I suppose there was an element of ridiculousness to their antics that drew a huge audience. But it doesn't change the fact that it was not automotive journalism. They were personalities spouting off opinions in between nice visuals and stunts cooked up by their producers.
Perhaps most of those who present automotive topics on TV, and in newspapers and magazines aren't TRUE journalists in the old-school sense. If your description of a journalist is someone who investigates, gathers and presents facts in a balanced manner, without an attempt at interpretation, then most fall short. They are merely entertainers or writers with an agenda.
Perhaps most of those who present automotive topics on TV, and in newspapers and magazines aren't TRUE journalists in the old-school sense. If your description of a journalist is someone who investigates, gathers and presents facts in a balanced manner, without an attempt at interpretation, then most fall short. They are merely entertainers or writers with an agenda.
Maybe that's why the BBC calls them "presenters" in the show credits.
I think a big factor in the popularity of Top Gear in the USA is the use of "proper english" & the different terms from what we use here.
In general, Americans tend to see Brits as cultured and intelligent. Too bad it doesn't always go both ways. I agree that the term "presenter" is more descriptive of the actual task of "hosting" a show. Then too, they call their on air "anchormen" and women, "newsreaders" which is far more consistent with the primary skill of reading what is fed them on the TelePrompTer. Reporters and writers (I'm biased myself here a bit) occupy a considerably higher skill level than a "talking head", aka, newsmodel, despite being paid considerably less.
The worst one was a contrived and silly episode where they went to Alabama and painted slogans on the side of their cars, while dressed up as stereotypical southerners. The whole thing was offensive on several levels and they soon found themselves in trouble at a gas station.
Point being that they had the audacity and typical Brit arrogance, to come to the States and insult an entire nation to tap into anti-American feelings in Britain. They did the same in Argentina and in India. Insulting local culture while parading around with a multi-million dollar budget funded by the British taxpayer.
If Top Gear had stuck to its original premise of doing weird, off the wall wonky stunts with cars that people admire, that would have been one thing. Instead they descended to the lowest common denominator. Luckily they imploded and that's a good thing.
Personally, I wouldn't be a sensitive flower about it and take the programme for what it was worth; light entertainment. They spent far more time poking fun at themselves and the UK than anywhere else in the world.
Personally, I wouldn't be a sensitive flower about it and take the programme for what it was worth; light entertainment. They spent far more time poking fun at themselves and the UK than anywhere else in the world.
exactly. i think of lot of the poking at britain though would be missed by other audiences as it's subtle and one has to know the cultural and class stereotypes. i doubt most americans would understand the archtetypes that clarkson, may, and hammond represent, which was part of the hilarity/chemistry of the show.
Personally, I wouldn't be a sensitive flower about it and take the programme for what it was worth; light entertainment. They spent far more time poking fun at themselves and the UK than anywhere else in the world.
There are other examples of bad behaviour. Because of their world wide audience and influence, I would hardly call what they did as "light entertainment". But then I see you're in the UK so I'm not surprised at your post.
And self effacing humor they presented about Brits was easily over compensated for with propaganda that showed the English in a positive light. On the other hand anything done in some of the countries where they wanted to reinforce racist stereotypes was pretty much left unbalanced.
Sometimes it takes a more deeper look to decode what the show and its "presenters" were really saying.
Some of you guys clearly have had chronic sense of humor failures and have totally missed the subtlety in Top Gear. The vast majority of it is indeed poking fun at the Brits themselves and also at their (and general) stereotypical views of the world. That's something the Brits do better than anyone. And as evidenced by some of the responses here, it's clearly something that the Brits understand about themselves better than anyone.
06-04-15, 07:35 PM
i think of lot of the poking at britain though would be missed by other audiences as it's subtle and one has to know the cultural and class stereotypes. i doubt most americans would understand the archtetypes that clarkson, may, and hammond represent, which was part of the hilarity/chemistry of the show.
