We didn’t care. We were hot.

I got my first car in 1985. It was a 1968 Opel Kadett L Station Wagon, which is still remembered as being labeled the Worst Car Ever Built by Car & Driver magazine. Those who worked at the magazine acknowledged at the time that that review was a hit piece - just a publicity stunt to sell magazines. But as an aficionado of this car, I admit that their perspective had some merit. My version looked a lot like the one pictured - dark red paint and Bondo trim. Although mine wasn't as fancy as the one reviewed by Car & Driver.

They reviewed the sport version of the car with the 1.5L motor, but mine was the more economy-minded 1.1L. I had a friend with a Nova with a 350 cubic-inch motor. My Opel's 1.1L motor was 67 cubic inches. Top speed was just under 60 mph, but once I got over 45 mph or so the loose rubber bushings and sloppy suspension would give a sensation of floating and wandering about, so even a 16-year-old maniac like me quickly lost interest in pushing it. Plus, it had drum brakes all the way around, which never really worked. There was nearly no engine braking, and the transmission was so sloppy that you couldn't always downshift - sometimes you just got stuck in-between gears if everything didn't go just right. And there was no synchromesh in first gear, so at that point, you had to come to a complete stop and just start all over.

The heat took 15 minutes to warm up the car, the defroster didn't work at all, it was cramped, noisy, and uncomfortable, acceleration was weak, braking was worse, and shifting gears required tremendous timing, coordination, and positive thinking.

Most importantly, it was virtually impossible to pick up girls in that thing. I couldn't really blame them. Novas were much, MUCH cooler.

My car sold for $2,200 new in 1968 (free in 1985), although the testing version that Car & Driver used also had the $99 performance package with disc brakes in front, and whitewall tires. Spiffy!

But really, this was just at the beginning of the economy car movement, and car makers were moving from exciting muscle cars that the car enthusiasts at Car & Driver loved, to more practical but less interesting small cars that those car enthusiasts hated.

Still, for basic transportation for us car magazine readers on a budget, it was a reasonable option. Not fun, not exciting, but perhaps practical and reasonable. We liked reading about muscle cars. But we bought practical cars. Which drew the ire of Car & Driver.

Anyway, it was no Chevy Nova, but it was my first car, and I loved it. I feel like I've written about that car here before, but the Ricochet search engine showed nothing. Of course, I can copy and past the exact title to a post I wrote last week and also get nothing, so who knows.

The reason I wrote about it now was a line from an article I saw today. The editor of Car & Driver in the late 1960's was Leon Mandel. The magazine was well respected at the time, but remained a niche publication. When asked why they did such an obvious hit piece instead of a more honest review in their magazine, he answered,

"To get the world to notice us, we decided to kill a car."

This is a common technique in the media now. For a journalist or a news outlet to get noticed, they have to destroy something.

The impact of this destructive piece was immediate and explosive. In fact, there was extensive collateral damage to other magazines published by the same company at One Park, NY. Although in the case of Car & Driver, it worked as planned, as Mr. Mandel noted (emphasis mine):

"We got noticed, all right. General Motors canceled all of its advertising in all Ziff-Davis magazines (Modern Bride even lost Frigidaire, a General Motors division then). Honeywell, involved somehow, dropped its ads in Popular Photography. Collateral damage was everywhere, and we staffers at Car & Driver had to suffer snubs from the innocent victims as we walked the halls of the publishing house at One Park. We didn't care. We were hot."

So they destroyed the relationship between a car magazine and America's largest automaker. They intentionally offended a significant portion of their readership, who would like an honest review of practical cars. They even slashed the revenue of other magazines published by their parent company, who have nothing to do with cars, like Modern Bride. Whatever.

We didn't care. We were hot.

Again, the Kadett was not a great car. But the worst car ever built? Geez, it was an economy car from 1968. There were plenty of mediocre cars coming out then, as the automakers tried to figure out how to make a modern Honda Accord. It's been 55 years, and they're still working on it. Small cars are much better now, but they're still working on it.

Were there no redeeming qualities? The entire article was just snark, sarcasm, and snide comments. Why not pretend to be balanced?

Because balance doesn't sell. "To get the world to notice us, we decided to kill a car."

Part of the reason that the media is so brutal with Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, and Donald Trump, and Mitt Romney, and so on is that they hate Republicans.

But it's also simple self-interest. "To get the world to notice us, we decided to kill a Republican." Which is fun and easy and profitable. Unfortunately, sometimes somebody will actually listen to them and try to actually kill an actual Republican. But whatever.

We didn't care. We were hot.

It's not new or creative. But it works.

The media hates Donald Trump. But they need him, too.

Of course, when he's gone, they'll just pick whoever's next in the Republican party. It doesn't matter who. It's not personal, it's just business. That's how they get noticed. That's how they generate revenue.

Surely there are other ways. But that's the only way they know.

The Kadett was not a great car. But it had some redeeming qualities. Perhaps our media does, too.

But sometimes I wonder...