One of the worst things about the internet is how it's democratized opinion.
Prior to the internet, if you wanted to post your opinion about anything - presidential candidates, dogcatcher candidates, the merits of a local restaurant or vintage vehicles - you had to find a magazine that would take you as a guest contributor or would publish your letter to the editor. It meant there were gatekeepers that would edit or deny your article if it was BS, if it were inaccurate, etc. People with formal training in the field of publishing looked at submissions and judged if they were acceptable to be released to the world. Companies that produced books about vehicles-whether the subject is vintage Porsches or army trucks didn't want to publish books with lots of inaccuracies because it would reflect poorly on their company and might reduce future sales.
Now, with the internet, that's all gone. All you need to do is have an opinion. I know virtually nothing about vintage Ferraris, but there's nothing stopping me from creating a website where I discuss the vehicles and their values. NOTHING stops me from doing this.
There is another problem with writing about things- inevitably, it becomes about money.
For instance................ car magazines, whether it's Musclecar Review or Hot Rod or whatever, exist to sell advertising. They do not exist to inform or entertain their readers. They exist to sell ads - and sell more of those ads for more money. And the way they do this is to tell people what they want to hear. How many of you have heard someone say "Old cars were so much better, you didn't need all these special tools to work on them". That's BS and I think I have a decent view of this, since I do restoration work for a living. I have at least $30K in tools so I'm gonna' have to disagree.
But............ you're going to get more readers if you tell them what they want to hear, versus telling them if they want to restore a '66 Mustang, they're going to need to outlay $30K in tools and $75K for a 30x40 building.
So as people create blogs, websites and YouTube channels, it might be about their passion initially, even if they're not the most informed about their topic, but eventually as they begin getting readers or clicks, the revenue becomes a possibility or a demand and now, they aren't generating media for the purposes of passion about the topic, they're generating media for profit and there's always going to be this drive to sort of give people what they want to hear or watch.
I read an interview with Mike Wallace years ago, and he said the worst thing that ever happened to 60 Minutes was that it turned a profit. He said prior to that, the bosses at the network considered the news a "loss leader" and didn't expect it to make money, so they basically got a budget and a mild warning about "not pissing off the sponsors too much" (i.e. if GM was buying 5 million bucks worth of commercial space, don't hammer them too much). But one year, 60 Minutes made a little money and all of sudden, Wallace said all this pressure starting come down from the top floor to monetize 60 Minutes more.
And..............................
Another thing you run into is "conventional wisdom". You won't read any article about antique cars in the 21st century that doesn't go over and over the same trope that's in every other article.
They were gorgeous and they represent freedom but they weren't as fast as we remember them being, they don't stop, they won't turn, etc., etc. Some of these things are true, but they've been repeated so many times that it's become such a dominant narrative that even a housewife who knows nothing about antique cars will know they have a reputation for crappy brakes.
And in our hobby, I think that also applies. You rear any article about the older air assisted hydraulic brake equipped 6x6s and it'll talk about the crappy brakes and that's crap. They have great brakes. People think they have crappy brakes because most of the owners are cheapskates, running on old worn out airpacks, brakes that are not adjusted or adjusted incorrectly, etc. But this has become such a dominant narrative that it's almost become the conventional wisdom.
And this article has so many of the things that I've discussed above, it's like a turkey shoot of lack-of-knowledge and conventional wisdom.
Literally, almost every sentence tells you the writer is a liar (bought for $300) or a complete automotive novice (the engine had a mountain of torque to push the rockwell axles).
And somebody likes me reads the first paragraph and realizes it's all BS and there's nothing of value and I move on. But a newb is going to read it and soak it all up and unless they're in the hobby deep and long enough to learn all the stuff that's wrong, they're going to repeat it to others and that's how all the BS inaccuracies follow these vehicles for decades (how many idiots have you heard talking about USMC deuces having lockers?).
It's a shame.
