http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/10276

"Hybrids' halo Commentary By BETSY HART
What is it with the halos following the hybrids?

There you are, in a group of folks having a perfectly rational discussion, . . ."

This article was a hack job that copied from "Reason" magazine that took dictation from "CNW Marketing." Those of us familar with the term "being Swift boated" have seen the pattern often enough to know what follows. Basicly, a lie is posted in one forum and then the 'chorus' picks up the lie from these secondary sources and it echos across all media. It is the propaganda version of money laundering.

The right answer is to challenge them, fast and hard, and hit them where it hurts, "fact checking." So this was e-mailed to Peter Copeland, Editor, of Scripts news service.
- - - -
Dear Editor,

Certainly Betsy Hart is welcome to her opinions in "Hybrids' Halo" but stating factual errors that are easily resolved by a news service search is plainly wrong. In her article, Ms. Hart states:

"(Car companies take losses on the cars.)" - Ignores Toyota's announcement of making a profit on each Prius sold. It takes a while for any new enterprise to make a profit but Toyota's balance sheet is well in the black with the Prius startup costs already being paid off by their sales.

"Hybrids cost about $6,000 more to make than simular gas-powered car . . ." - Attributed to _Reason_ magazine, it only takes a simple call to any local Toyota dealer or web search to find the price difference between a Toyota Camry XLE, $22,795, and Toyota Camry Hybrid, $25,900, a difference of only $3,115. When the standard features of the Toyota Camry Hybrid are added to the Toyota Camry XLE, the difference drops to about $1,500. Call the local Toyota dealer and let a salesman provide the two quotes, it is their job.

". . .sales of hybrids have dropped every month this year compared to the same month last year. " - ignores the catestrophic drop of non-hybrids. In the case of GM, it threatens their existence as a company and the investors are forcing GM management to seek help from Nissan. Then there is this article from MSNBC, "GM sales decline sharpy in June - Ford, DaimlerChrysler also report lower sales; Toyota surges."

". . . they don't last nearly as long as gas-powered cars (around 100,000 vs. 300,000 miles)" - yet the Department of Energy conducted a fleet study of hybrids, INL/CON-05-00964, and ended the study at 160,000 miles with hybrid vehicles still performing at nearly the same levels as new.

Betsy is certainly welcome to her opinion but not to misrepresenting the facts. What is sad is these few examples of false claims from her "Hybrids' halo" piece are easily verified by doing an internet search for sources. Betsy's problem came from a failure to fact-check the flawed "CNW Marketing" claims and sources who use "CNW Marketing" in their reports.

Robert J. Wilson
Huntsville, AL
- - - - -

 

Hybrid premium is now $6,000.....I'm so glad to have got one when it was only $3,000.

After hearing so many of these hybrid-bashing articles, my question is why so many of them are written? People that think you can race and save fuel at the same time? Lazy journalism? Encouragement from a Detroit automaker to write such stuff?

 

Very well done Bob! I wonder what type of vehicle Ms. Betsy Hart drives?

 

Hi,
I suspect there are multiple reasons:

1) fact-checking is hard work - it takes time to check the facts especially if your 'fact checker' is already overloaded. Many of these writers are not technically astute but they can sling English. They have to depend upon others to feed them and if their source has a problem with the facts, they will echo a false story.

2) Detroit bias - when "CNW Marketing" recently claimed a Chevy Aveo is the hybrid replacement, several 'red flags' jumped out. "CNW Marketing" didn't use either the Toyota Echo or even the Toyota Scion xB cited in their original report. Why the sudden change?

But remember, our goal has to target the editors and news directors of the media, not "CNW Marketing" nor the original reporters. We have one club, "fact checking," but what is hard work for them is easy for us because we follow the technology.

So when we see one of these 'Swift boat' copies, it is important to respond:
- quickly
- factually

It is also important that folks other than myself, Bob Wilson, respond. In fact, it is our best interest to get those with an econmic interest in hybrid success to respond such as local car dealers and maybe, the somewhat lazy press offices of hybrid manufacturers.

Bob Wilson

 

From Betsy's article:

"_ I prefer big, heavy and safe _ "

I don't think that her problem is lack of motivation to do fact checking.
My guess is that she drives a big, gas guzzling SUV (soccer mom???), and feels somewhat bad or ashamed about it, and one way to correct this - for some people - is to put those down who make you feel ashamed. Of course I don't know if that's what's behind Betsy's rant, but I really wonder whether this feeling of shame about driving a Socially Unacceptable Vehicle is not behind a good portion of the anti-hybrid rants, and even "reviews" by supposedly reputable sources.

 

I personally doubt that these articles are being driven by shame.

I think it really comes down to misinformation. Most people you talk too believe that hybrids are more costly. They truly believe that you pay 5K more for the hybrid drive train and that it truly does cost more to maintain. This is purely being driven by ignorance of technology, and lack of understanding.

This is true with many things. I can't count the number of times I day I hear people make definitive statements about something that the really don't know about or understand. They formed this opinion because their Buddy Tom "said", or their Cousin Jill "told them".

 

I quickly skimmed the article; she says she drives a minivan.
Now, she mixes some truth in with her outright lies. Her "they don't get EPA mpg"(yeah,I'm paraphrasing her) is correct of course.However, what she leaves out is that most cars-driven by "average drivers"- don't get EPA city mpg in the city either.
It might even be true that the Prius is farther from EPA than the average car(probably gets 40-45 mpg city vs 60 EPA-say 75% of EPA).I haven't seen any good study of this, but I might buy that.We tend to get 13/17(76%) of EPA with the Pilot and 42/60(72%) with the Prius; Prizm 23/28 82%; 12/14 85% Titan- fairly close.What she ignores is that the Prius almost doubles the MPG of the similar sized/accel. Prizm(Corolla).
So her "They don't get EPA" is true, but misleading, since almost no cars get EPA city when driven by "average drivers." Check CR for example-they got a miserable 35 mpg with the Prius in their city loop.However they also got 18 mpg with a 2006 Civic-AT-.Doubling the mpg of a Civic is spectacular, and exactly what the EPA test predicts 30 vs 60 becomes 18 vs 35-all but dead on!!
Her "they only last (on average)100,000 miles vs 300,000 for gas cars" is an outright lie of course.Has anyone here EVER seem/owned a gas car with 300,000 miles on it? I would bet that fewer tham 1/100 gas cars reach 300,000 miles-maybe more like 1/1000. My guess is that her "truth" behind this is the old claim that the hybrid batteries will last just 100,000 miles. No proof of this anywhere. Besides, how many gas only cars last 300,000 miles without a very expensive(transmission comes to mind as most likely) $3000 repair? None!!
Yes, this is typical "Swift Boating." Mix a little truth(don't get EPA) with outright lies (100,000 vs 300,000 and the Prius vs Hummer BS-another obvious lie-it doesn't take a lot of energy to produce computer chips or 90 lbs batteries-nothing like the 10,000 gallons a Hummer uses over 100,000 miles)
The" Toyota doesn't make $$ selling them" isn't my problem.Worse case,it is a smart PR move .I don't see Toyota losing $$ because of them? Toyota might not have expected to make $$ on them, but building them keeps their CAFE numbers up, so they feel free to build lots of high margin big vehicles. There are lots of ways to "make money" on something. I have to admit, the Prius sure seems like it is more than $4000 "better" than a Corolla or a Matrix.
I doubt Toyota foresaw $3/gas in 2005.They probably didn't expect to sell as many Prius this early.Heck, they didn't sell that many of the earlier model.Gasoline was $1.30/gal pre 9-11-2001. The run up has been due to the war in Iraq-fear premium. At $3/gal the Prius reaches breakeven against a $5000 cheaper Corolla/Civic at under 100,000 miles.Much sooner against everything else(excluding a HCH 2-it probably reaches breakeven miles sooner than a Prius, since it cost $2000 less).
A little "true" truth, mixed with outright unsupported lies. Not sure about the motivation(sour grapes, guilt?).Thanks.Charlie

 

• Aversion to the unfamiliar
• Writers that use performance cars as the benchmark
• Bad research, repeating what others have said without investigating
• See hybrids as a threat to Detroit
• Some writers seeing hybrids as a threat to larger vehicles (this writer has a minivan), even though the FEH and HiHi are hybrids.
• "Red State" person seeing hybrids as an environmental/political statement (i.e. GreenPeace), even though they are driven by people all over the political spectrum
• Ignorance

 

Who is CNW Marketing? I'm familiar with their content and bias, but who are they?

 

Hi folks,

I got a nice letter from Peter Copeland, one of the Scripps News Service editors, that said:

"Thank you for a thoughtful letter. I will pass it along to her editors. Peter"

This is the goal. We can't change "CNW Marketing" nor those who simply copy from sloppy sources. Our only recourse is to clearly state the facts and data with pointers to the sources and methods and share it with responsible individuals.

BTW, "CNW Marketing" can be found quickly with a Google search. It appears to be a small consulting firm that does 'studies' to help the auto industry understand what is going on. Near as I can tell, they have some set of sources they "survey" plus harvesting what can be found in press releases, some papers and trade publications.

Today, their "Dust-to-dust" report seems to be the genesis of the latest wave of skeptic claims. The problem are the news sources that don't fact-check the "CNW Marketing" claims. This leads to a lot of echos. The key is to be ready with the facts and data and in a clear, concise and complete letter, to let the editors, those who care about the credibility of their publication, know the facts and data.

My only regret is my English is not very good and we need voices other than mine. There is nothing wrong with sharing points that I may have missed. It isn't quantity but the quality of the letters that count.

Bob Wilson