#Media

At the suggestion of a well-wisher, I picked up the July copy of Motor Trend for my flight back home Iowa yesterday. Though some of the stories showed improvement in that publication’s quality of coverage, the item pointed out by our tipster [online here] was disappointing indeed. The piece, on Fiat’s ongoing acquisition of Chrysler’s equity includes the following paragraph:

Fiat is expected to obtain another 5 percent of Chrysler soon to bring its interest to 51 percent, provided it introduces a 40-mpg (highway) EPA-rated car built in the U.S. wearing a Chrysler brand badge before the end of 2011. With Fiat and Chrysler pulling the plug on electric car development, the 40-mpg car is likely to be a 1.4-liter Multijet-powered Dodge Caliber. The Caliber is scheduled for replacement in model year 2013, so the Multijet version could be a 2012 model only, with the powertrain carried on to its replacement.

So, what’s the problem? Well, as TTAC (and precisely nobody else) has reported, the government’s agreement with Fiat is not for that firm to build “a 40-mpg (highway) EPA-rated car.” It takes some digging through the corporate agreement between Fiat, Chrysler, the UAW and the Treasury, but it’s clear that the government requires that Fiat build a car that tests at 40 MPG combined, using the old “unadjusted” (Pre-1985) CAFE fuel economy rating. Which means that, although Fiat could build a car capable of 40 MPG EPA highway, the government’s agreement requires as little as 31 MPG EPA Combined. Which means M/T’s write-up technically falls on the wrong side of the truth. Although, to be fair, I have yet to find a media outlet that has got this story right…

Don’t blame Jerry Hirsch for this headline. Heck, don’t blame the LA Times either. This headline comes courtesy of the Modesto Bee, which demonstrates its auto reporting incompetence by making the oldest assumption in the non-car-guy book: if they make V6 and V8 engines, they must make V4s as well. And though this abject ignorance may be good for a chuckle, it’s indicative of a larger problem: no matter how good of an auto writer you are, chances are you have to send your piece through an editor who knows little to nothing about cars.

Mark Modica, a former Saturn dealer GM bondholder, has leveraged his financial loss at the hands of the government bailout into a blogging position at the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit that “promotes ethics in public life through research, investigation, education and legal action.” At the NLPC, Modica focuses on what he believes to be corruption surrounding the auto bailout, and has written a series of anti-GM posts that make TTAC look like a Detroit hometown newspaper (TTAC “bias police,” take note). Most recently, Modica has caught the attention of the auto media, including Automobile Magazine and Jalopnik, with a series of posts accusing Chevy dealers of “scamming” taxpayers by claiming the Volt’s $7,500 tax credit and then selling Volts as used cars. TTAC welcomes anyone seeking to cast more light on the bailout, but unfortunately, Modica’s attacks are too focused on making GM look bad and not focused enough on providing relevant information to the American people. Let’s take a look and see why…

With new compact and subcompact models from Ford and GM enjoying respectable sales, the mainstream media has been indulging in some “feel-good” headlines, like the New York Times’s Detroit’s Rebound Is Built on Smaller Cars, or CBS’s more equivocal Can small cars rebound U.S. auto industry? It’s an understandable instinct, as the media has long battered Detroit’s inability to build competitive compact and subcompact cars, and in the post-bailout atmosphere of redemption, these headlines definitely help reassure Americans about the value of their “investment.” Unfortunately (if unsurprisingly), however, these pieces gloss over the full truth of the situation. Yes, Ford and GM are enjoying improved sales success with small cars. The “U.S. auto industry,” on the other hand, isn’t actually getting all that much out of the situation, beyond some fluffily positive press. Here’s why:

Chrysler’s bailout “thank you” event today was long on praise for the redemptive power of its government bailout and short on talk of remaining challenges, but at least one important fact was acknowledged: this highly-touted “payback” was only for 85% of the money loaned to Chrysler during the bailout period. Although, to be perfectly accurate, it wasn’t exactly Chrysler who acknowledged the outstanding obligation [the firm avoids any such nuance in its release], as CEO Sergio Marchionne simply stated that

We received confirmation this morning at 10.13 am from Citigroup that Chrysler Group repaid, with interest, by wire transfer to the United States Treasury and by bank transfer to the Canadian government, every penny that had been loaned less than two years ago. [Emphasis added]

That last bit was the important part… as in, the part that was most often repeated in Chrysler’s presentation and in subsequent media reports. But it’s not the whole story…

An executive from American Traffic Solutions, a purveyor of red light cameras, has been suspended after being exposed for posing as an area resident in 43 comments on red light camera-related stories at the Everett Herald. The Herald reported last Friday

Some readers have suggested “W Howard” has been posting comments as part of a marketing campaign run by American Traffic Solutions, Inc. The Scottsdale-based company contracts to provide enforcement camera services in Lynnwood and Seattle. It had inked a similar deal in Mukilteo last year, then [ anti-camera activist Tim] Eyman pushed for a public vote. Upshot: no cameras in Mukilteo, and a spreading movement around Washington that has growing numbers of people asking questions about enforcement camera technology.

Heraldnet.com requires that people who wish to post comments supply us with a live email address at the time they create their user account. “W Howard” gave an address at American Traffic Solutions. It is one used by Bill Kroske, vice president of business development at ATS. Somebody techie here ran down the internet protocol address that’s being used for “W Howard’s” posts. The electronic trail led straight back to Kroske’s company in Scottsdale.

Kroske pitched Mukilteo on the cameras. He recently was in Bellingham, suggesting a similar arrangement. He’s been the public face of American Traffic Solutions in arranging camera contracts in Washington.

ATS spokesman Charley Territo (whom TTAC readers may remember from his days as spokesman for the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers and TTAC guest editorialist) tells the Spokane Spokesman-Review (where, it turns out, Kroske had left nine pro-camera comments) that his co-worker had expressed his uncontrollable pro-camera passions “the wrong way” by not identifying himself and posing as a local resident. Ya think? [Hit the jump for a full statement from ATS President James Tuton].

Meanwhile, are there any TTAC commenters who have something they need to get off their chests?

Pop quiz: when does an eight-month-old story generate a huge amount of interest? When it’s got political overtones, of course. And what better way to milk the last dregs of bailout resentment than by telling a story that seems too bizarre to be true: Cadillac is a “proud” chief sponsor of a Chinese Communist Party-produced film entitled “The Birth of a Party” (or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party” depending on the quality of your translator). The story started last September, at ChinaAutoWeb.com, and was recently revivified by the Washington Times, Commentary Magazine, and Big Hollywood. Our main interest in the story has to do with its lessons about the rise of China, that country’s tortured relationship with luxury goods, its foreign (from the American perspective) political economy and Cadillac’s continued need for better momentum in China… but clearly others are more interested in it for different reasons.

The political point seems to be that government money is being funneled to the Chinese Communist Party via General Motors, an accusation that, though shocking, doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny. After all, nearly anyone doing business of any kind in China ultimately supports the political and economic structure created by the Chinese Communist Party, legitimizing it and lining its pockets. And surely nobody is suggesting GM abandon China altogether, thus eliminating its greatest opportunity for growth. Meanwhile, as the Freep helpfully points out, Caddy needs all the help it can get in China: without a single vehicle in the luxury car top-ten, Cadillac needs to be aggressive in marketing to China. Still, from a PR perspective, Cadillac clearly has a line to walk here… perhaps it should look for less visible (and risible) ways of building up guanxi (connections) with the powers that be in the world’s largest market for cars.

It started as a flippant Twitter comment, in which GM Global Marketing Officer Joel Ewanick agreed to champion a return for the “El Camino” if 100,000 potential buyers raised their hands for it. Smelling an opportunity for some publicity, Jalopnik quickly picked up on the “challenge” and urged readers to leave a comment in support of the trucklet. At first Ewanick tried to hedge, saying he needed 100k deposits, rather than blog comments, to approve an El Camino for the US market. But now the former Hyundai marketer has taken Jalopnik’s challenge to Chevy’s Facebook page, giving a surprising amount of credibility for a “challenge” that began with a throwaway tweet. What makes Chevy’s endorsement of the “El Camino Challenge” even more surprising: the total lack of apparent enthusiasm.

Lenses at the Shanghai Auto Show definitely test both sides of the envelope. Some photographers came with lenses long and wide enough to take close-ups of concept cars shown on the moon.

Has it really been a year since the United States tore itself apart in a frenzy over the possibility that Toyota’s might suddenly accelerate out of control? So intense was the furor over Toyota’s alleged misdeeds, that it seems like the whole scandal occurred only yesterday, yet the brevity of the crisis already gives it the distance of ancient history. Now, just a year after the height of the hysteria, the first major book on the subject has arrived, casting a clear light on the events of the recall. Serving as a history of the scandal, a case study in Toyota’s responses to it, and a cutting critique of the media’s coverage of the recall, Toyota Under Fire is a powerful reminder of the many lessons that emerged from one of the most intense and unexpected automotive industry events in recent years.

The ever-evolving world of auto journalism ethics took an interesting turn recently, when GM’s European brand Opel offered 200 journalists the opportunity to test “some interesting models from our product range” on the Mediterranean vacation island of Mallorca. What raised the eyebrows of the German Journalist’s Association: the fact that the test offered access to only a few new features (stop-start on the Astra Sports Tourer diesel, and a six-speed autobox on the Insignia OPC), while offering journalists the opportunity to bring their families along at “a special rate neogtiated by Opel.” The GJA called the offer “practically an attempt to bribe journalists,” prompting Opel to withdraw the offer. Hit the jump for a translation of Opel’s statement [via Autobild].

It may well be wishful thinking on my part, but in the three years that I’ve been covering the world of cars, I do feel like I’ve seen a subtle but perceptible improvement in the general quality of the automotive media. Obviously the progress hasn’t been evenly distributed, but more outlets seem to be tip-toeing towards more in-depth stories, better analysis and more independence from the forces of OEM PR. Why? Possibly because the industry’s many challenges are providing more and better stories about cars, or possibly because the recent downturn made OEMs more open to less obviously-friendly writers, outlets and story pitches. One thing is certain: the growth of online automotive media has certainly played a role, putting more pressure on the established outlets, branching out into media criticism and reconnecting auto writers to the readers they serve.

For a while now, blogs have benefited from a lack of faith in the entrenched world of automotive print journalism. But, as print outlets have started to respond to the online threat and online outlets become increasingly sucked into the “PR Friendly” maelstrom that engulfed the buff books’ credibility, a new phenomenon seems to be on the rise which threatens the blogs from the very point of attack that helped them vault into the ranks of the auto media establishment: the “enthusiast reporter.”

Tesla has sued Top Gear for depicting its Roadster running out of electricity in the 2008 segment shown above. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Tesla is suing because

Top Gear’s allegation that the car’s range is 55 miles is defamatory because it suggests Tesla “grossly misled potential purchasers of the Roadster,”

But Top Gear spokesfolks tell the BBC

We can confirm that we have received notification that Tesla have issued proceedings against the BBC. The BBC stands by the programme and will be vigorously defending this claim.

And, as long as the Tesla Roadster that Top Gear tested was a first-generation machine (and we think it is), Tesla’s going to have a little problem making the case that the BBC defamed their car…

Back in 1976, the Italian automaker Fiat had been badly battered by a global energy crisis and the resulting malaise infecting the global auto industry. In what Time Magazine described at the time as “a devastatingly ironic example of petropower,” Col. Muammar Gaddafi instructed his Libyan Arab Foreign Bank to invest some $415m into the Italian automaker, giving it a stake that would eventually grow to some 14 percent of the firm’s equity.

By 1986, Fiat’s Libyan stakeholders were becoming more trouble than they were worth. In the wake of the Lockerbie bombings, the US introduced sanctions on Libya, and Fiat’s Libyan connection left its attempts to bid for US military contracts (particularly those related to Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative) dead on arrival. As a result, Fiat and its shareholders bought back the entire 14 percent Libyan stake in the firm, presenting the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank-controlled Banca UBAE with a $3.1b check. And, according to what a Fiat spokesperson told us yesterday, that is where the story ends. But thanks to the now-ubiquitous Wikileaks, we have found that this story may in fact go farther than that. In fact, as the evidence stands right now, either the US State Department is working with bad information (which major news sources have yet to correct), or Fiat is lying about its ties to the embattled Gaddafi regime.