On GM, EVs, and Getting It Right

As we wrote last week, General Motors “aspires” to go all-EV by 2035. We noted that was a goal and that they might not make it.

As John Voelcker at The Drive points out, some mainstream media outlets missed that distinction.

(Full disclosure: I once freelanced for a company that employed John, and he’s edited some of my past work. I’ve also been to his house. So it’s safe to say we know each other a bit).

Voelcker points to The New York Times and TechCrunch as examples, and the NYT headline is especially wrong – it claims that GM will only sell EVs by 2035, as if it’s a given the General will reach its goal.

The Times story then leads off with an assertion that the days of the internal-combustion engine are numbered – before ending the article with an admission that the ICE will likely be around a while no matter if GM meets its goal or not.

To be fair to the Times, the actual story is more nuanced – and as far as I can tell, accurate – than the headline suggests. And the actual body makes it clear that this is a “vision” by GM and it’s no certainty that the company will achieve its goal.

I suspect the headline was written by a copy editor who doesn’t know much about cars and maybe didn’t give the story a super-close read in the rush to meet deadline. This happens sometimes, especially at big papers – the headline isn’t written by the story author, and a harried copy editor gets it close but not exactly correct.

Certainly, Neal Boudette, who has a co-byline on the piece, probably knows better. I don’t know Neal, but he covers the auto industry and I’ve read his stuff before and not noticed any factual issues. Coral Davenport, the other author, seems to come from an energy and environmental policy background, with a focus on climate. Three other reporters get credit at the piece’s end.

This isn’t to pick on the Times. As I said, the actual article generally tackles the topic with nuance. But as Voelcker points out, mainstream outlets often get the auto industry wrong. See also CNN learning something about Tesla most auto journalists have known for quite some time.

This isn’t because the mainstream media is “fake news” or “biased” or “the enemy of the people.” Nope, it’s simple – the auto industry is complex, many general-assignment and business reporters don’t know much about cars and the industry, and the pressure to turn stories quickly doesn’t always give journalists time to properly learn a new topic.

In other words, well-meaning journalists who are just scratching the surface of a topic might get some things wrong inadvertently. They don’t even know what they don’t know.

Take coronavirus coverage for example. Some general-assignment reporters who probably barely passed their science classes have learned quickly how to accurately cover the virus while also translating science into layman’s terms. Others, maybe not so much.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust the mainstream media – in general, you should – but it does mean that reading as many different reliable sources as possible is better, and reading work by those who’ve made science their beat might be more informative when it comes to the coronavirus, and possibly more accurate.

Same goes for cars. There’s no reason not to trust the NYT or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal’s business or general news reporters when it comes to autos, but one should keep in mind that some reporters might be dealing with a topic that’s unfamiliar to them.

There are, of course, business reporters who get the industry right. One way to suss these folks out is to click their bios and see if they’ve covered the industry or have autos/transportation as a beat. Those who tackle the topic often are usually more likely to get it right.

Voelcker goes on in his article to detail the challenges that GM faces in achieving its goal, and how GM itself seemed to flip from backing the Trump administration on lowering fuel-economy standards to touting EV goals as soon as Joe Biden won the presidency and started floating policy goals that could push the industry in the direction of EVs. The old “stick your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing” trick.

We touched on some of those challenges in our news story, but not in-depth – that’s possibly worth a separate post, although we’ve talked in general about the challenges to EV adoption plenty in the past.

I did possibly get one thing wrong – the GM announcement does not appear to cover heavy-duty trucks, which I said it did. GM only said “light-duty vehicles”. Which excludes heavy-duty trucks and means that if those trucks remain as popular as they are now, they could still be using thirsty gasoline and (slightly less thirsty) diesel engines in 2035. GM gave itself some cover there. I missed that in the press release. Mea culpa.

The larger point is, GM made major news with its announcement Thursday – news that wasn’t relegated to the autos or business sections. And some outlets reported a goal as a given.

Don’t let an (understandable) lack of institutional knowledge among reporters who don’t often cover cars confuse you. GM has set an ambitious goal. It may reach it, it may not (my personal opinion – it will get partway there, though how far I am not sure), but it’s not a given that the company will be all EV in less than 15 years.

was trending on Twitter over the weekend. Let me give some polite advice to any business or general-assignment reporters who get assigned a story on an automaker’s promises – remember that they are just that.

Promises are often broken. Journalists of all stripes should especially know that. And the car business is not exempt.

[Image: GM]