JimA, I was reading my copy of the latest GG Gazette and I came accross an annonymous review of Hop Up #5. The reviewer begins with a statement that ther is "No shortage of white boys on the cover", refering to the photo of some of the Choppers with some of their cars. The reveiwer goes on to describe the story and photo shoot contained inside from which the cover photo was gleaned. The photo shoot is in an industrial setting showing Choppers members and models dispersed between some of the Choppers cars. A**** the models shown, there were some nice looking young women and a nice looking black couple. The reviewer is concerned that none of these models appeared in the cover photo. The reviewer uses the first half of the text in the review writing about what a sad state car publications are in when on cover photos they will exclude people of color and will only include women when they are in skimpy clothing and provacative poses, all in persuit of a better bottom line. The reviewer also infers that Mark Morton and the Hop Up crew are guilty of "unitentional predudice". This burned my **** for a couple of reasons. First, as for the cover photo, I get it. The Hop Up motto is "it's about the iron". The photo shows some of the most choice machines around with the people who built, own and drive those machines. It makes perfect sense. As I just said, the motto is "it's about the iron", not "it's about the models". Second, based on what I read on the Hop Up web site, in all of the Hop Up annuals, plus all of the occasions that I have talked with Mark Morton, I don't see his Hop Up endeavors as bottom line oriented and I don't see him as someone pre disposed to racial or gender predjudice. The last thing, and this one really bugs me, is that this review is unsigned and annonymous. To review someone's work and make such ugly inferrences while remaining annonymous is plain wrong. Maybe this was an oversight, some "unintentional cowardice" perhaps. P.S. I looked through the rest of my GG Gazette and focused on all of the pictures. Maybe I missed something, but I did not see one single black face in any of the photos. Hmmmm....
Who do you reckon is more motivated by their bottom line? Hop Up, or Good Guys??? Those who live in gl*** houses should not throw stones.
I don't know when GG started reviewing other people's magazines- but I know it was DEFINITELY AFTER I walked out the door a couple months ago. I have no idea what this review is and I will make the same statement everyone gets when they inquire about me to a Goodguys' employee "JIM DOESN'T WORK HERE ANYMORE". My name was on the mast head, but I did my show coverage and that was it- the rest was submitted and put together after I was working at Rod & Custom. I will be very interested to see where and how that review is placed in the magazine. I have a PRETTY GOOD guess who wrote those words, but up until this point I never saw them. I would remember because the Chopper's are all very good friends of mine and I have always loved the work that Mark Morton has done (even the stuff that no one really knows he is responsible for). Sounds like this is one for the Goodguys Gazette Publisher KIRK! to answer.
Race and politics are a bottomless pit, that we should not get into here on the HAMB- I say the point was made and that should be the end of that.
I don't think anyone was really discussing race or politics. More a discussion of where the GGG gets off insulting a mag like Hop Up. Of course, I suppose discussing mags could be O/T also, so maybe it should be left alone for that reason.
[ QUOTE ] Who do you reckon is more motivated by their bottom line: Hop Up, or GoodGuys? [/ QUOTE ] No ****. That was pathetic. I don't think I'd be sticking my neck out by saying that Mark Morton has the full support of everyone on the HAMB. Dave Mann http://www.roadsters.com/
The review was submitted by Landspeed Louise who's column the review appears with. She definitely doesn't speak for me in that respect. The piece was put in during the transition from JimA to no JimA before I really got a grasp of who did what. Don't take it too seriously. Of course we all support anything Mark Morton puts out. It's always stellar stuff.
JimA and KIRK!, thank you for the responses. Based on the content and placement of the review, I kinda figured that Landspeed Louise wrote it. However, looking at the way that this was laid out with her signature line appearing at the end of her column, and the review being contained in a separate box with no signature line, it was not clear at all that she had written it. Louise certainly has the right to have and express her opinions (even if I don't agree with them ), but when an opinion is expressed in print, it is an important responsibility of both the writer and the publication to be sure that the reader knows from where the opinion comes, especially when there is negative content. Without that, both the writer and the publication loose credibilty. I don't take the things that I read in magazines all that seriously, and I understand that this was an oversight, but I do think that those who write for and publish magazines should take their responsibilities very seriously. This kind of thing should not happen. Thanks again for responding, Mike
Personally, I don't see how ANYONE can have anything bad to say about HOP UP beyond an annual issue not being enough. I am also suprised they used "models" at all in the photoshoot. The choppers, their g/fs and their cars should have been just fine to recreate the "look". Why go to the extra expense to hire "pretty people" when it's unneccesary. Hop Up is not about the "pretty people". I thought about starting a thread on this myself, but I decided I'd be better served to write to GG, which I am still planning on doing. Based on the review, I think Landspeed Louise was oblivious to the fact the the photographer was a woman and a well respected one at that.
The Jalopy Journal
