3 ms·

The following [1] is an article that explains a bit of the supposed corruption behind the franchise protection laws. It is from a very biased source (Mother Jo

by venning 11y ago

The following [1] is an article that explains a bit of the supposed corruption behind the franchise protection laws. It is from a very biased source (Mother Jones), but the underlying facts can be sourced from many places. Essentially, California pioneered the idea of protecting existing franchises from being cannibalized by the manufacturer that they were dependent on. But other states have taken the idea to an extreme. [1] http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new-car-online http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new...

fulafel 11y ago
What makes you say MJ is very biased? I've been finding their articles pretty good and can't spot any links (or allegations thereof) to interest groups in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29
- venning 11y ago
  I should not have said "very" biased. I also did not mean it as an indictment, only to prep the reader that there may be a bit of a slant. Google can point out some allegedly biased reporting they have done [1], but I'm certainly no expert on it. My concern, in this particular case, is that Mother Jones has, by most accounts, a left-leaning bias [2, among others]. Dealership associations have, by most accounts, a right-leaning bias [3, among others]. The conflict there raises my internal alarm when reading them on this issue. Moreover, you can't talk about franchise protections without talking about two major recent presidents during their tenure as governors. That those presidents are generally referred to negatively by MJ (in my personal estimation) and that casting their political legacies in a negative light makes a naturally-appealing target, needs to be considered. That said, I agree with you. I find MJ's articles generally good and I believe their reporting on this issue was very enlightening. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+jones+bias https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+jones+bias [2] http://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones http://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones [3] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/news-flash-car-dealers-a...
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  The very premise of MJ is biased. They search for/create articles to support their agenda. They are in no way similar to Consumer Reports or any other independent lab, because they start with the assumption that their goals are right. Not scientific, not by a million miles, and I think 'very biased' is exactly the right name for them.

by venning 11y ago

fulafel 11y ago

What makes you say MJ is very biased? I've been finding their articles pretty good and can't spot any links (or allegations thereof) to interest groups in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29

venning 11y ago
I should not have said "very" biased. I also did not mean it as an indictment, only to prep the reader that there may be a bit of a slant. Google can point out some allegedly biased reporting they have done [1], but I'm certainly no expert on it. My concern, in this particular case, is that Mother Jones has, by most accounts, a left-leaning bias [2, among others]. Dealership associations have, by most accounts, a right-leaning bias [3, among others]. The conflict there raises my internal alarm when reading them on this issue. Moreover, you can't talk about franchise protections without talking about two major recent presidents during their tenure as governors. That those presidents are generally referred to negatively by MJ (in my personal estimation) and that casting their political legacies in a negative light makes a naturally-appealing target, needs to be considered. That said, I agree with you. I find MJ's articles generally good and I believe their reporting on this issue was very enlightening. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+jones+bias https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+jones+bias [2] http://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones http://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones [3] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/news-flash-car-dealers-a...
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
The very premise of MJ is biased. They search for/create articles to support their agenda. They are in no way similar to Consumer Reports or any other independent lab, because they start with the assumption that their goals are right. Not scientific, not by a million miles, and I think 'very biased' is exactly the right name for them.