US Media not a friend to domestic automakers

gtrietsc

gtrietsc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Allen, TX USA
Car(s)
'07 Ford F-150 FX4, '06 BMW M5
I don't think I need to tell most people on the board here in the US that you rarely here negative press about foriegn automakers. If there is a recall announced from Ford or Chevy, it is front page news, but a recall by another maker like Toyota, if mentioned, is Page 6 at best. Tonight's latest example?

3172450153_78b0140be7_o.jpg


I know its all in the wording, but Toyota actually experienced a larger drop in sales than Ford did, December 2007 to December 2008, and actually gaine 0.7% market share. But the headlines the way written imply that its still only the Big Three that are hurting, when its the whole market.
 
Since when has the media been about fair, equal-opportunity reporting? They just report on what they think people will watch/read and give it a priority as such. It's so sad.
 
Well I think people in the US are probably generally more worried about how the domestic companies are doing. And since there's been tons of press about the Big Three and the bailout among other things, having "US Automakers" in the title of the article will probably draw lots of attention.

When you click on the link to that article though, this is what it says:
Auto sales plunge again in December
Sales of cars, trucks and SUVs all plummeted, capping the worst year for industrywide auto sales since 1992.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Battered by tight credit and the worst recession in decades, industrywide U.S. auto sales plunged 36% from year-ago levels in December, a decline that hit all of the major automakers, both foreign and domestic, and capped the industry's worst year since 1992.

But despite the big drop off from year-ago sales, the December results were up about 20% from November, although the gain was more narrow on a seasonally adjusted basis...
Click to expand...
 
Meh, what else is new? Then again, I don't even know why this would come as a surprise to anybody in CNN Money, I'm sure they've had that same story for the last 5 (or 30) years and they just trot it out every time the numbers change slightly more. And what is CNN Wire, anyway?

Sex, violence common topics for MySpace teens
Click to expand...

funny-pictures-captain-obvious-cat.jpg


Top-notch investigative reporting from the world's finest news source, once again. I'm sure Mary Whitehouse is just shocked.

Also, I'm strangely interested by Laura Bush's "intimate" details. Ooh, where does she buy her panties from? Kohls? Sam's Club?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AiR
Yea, if you click through - but many people will see that, already knowing its been bad what with all the bailout talk, shrug their shoulders, and move on to shocking revelations about MySpace.

I actually wrote a local TV reporter about his story regarding red light cameras going up in my suburb - he talked to three normal joes and shockingly they all thought RLC's were awesomesauce. I asked why he didn't try to find at least one opposing viewpoint, or offer up the opposition stance in his story, and he wrote back to me admitting that he should have done that - which shocked me. Still, I didn't see him rewrite the story :)
 
I don't see the big deal. I'd have thought given the higher number of Americans employed by the Big Three, and the Government bail-out of them, their economic well-being would have a higher importance in the U.S. than that of Toyota.
 
fbc said:
I don't see the big deal. I'd have thought given the higher number of Americans employed by the Big Three, and the Government bail-out of them, their economic well-being would have a higher importance in the U.S. than that of Toyota.
Click to expand...


Well, yes - but if all you hear is the negative of American autos, and you dont hear any negative about the competition, it can very powerfully shape your perception. Its like a self fulfilling prophecy. Media says the cars suck, less people want them, deeper discounts to revive sales, used values fall further, now they are less desirable, so even fewer people buy them, etc, etc.

Meanwhile, no one is buying Toyotas either, but the perception isnt injured because there is little negative reporting.
 
^ Perhaps, just maybe, there's some truth behind that perception? If everyone in the media is saying the cars suck, maybe that's true, in which case why should people buy them and justify the decisions of those behind mediocre products?

In short, don't blame the media for a company's shortcomings.
 
I agree - report the crap, just saying report it equally.
 
Alright, here are some current numbers.

First percentage is the whole annual decline in sales, when you compare the whole year 2008 with 2007, the percentage in brackets is the decline when you compare December 2008 to December 2007:

General Motors: -23 % (-31 %)
Ford: -20 % (Trucks -34 %, cars -26 %. Side note: Volvo -47 %)
Chrysler: -30 % (-53 %)
Porsche: -24 % (n.a.)
Volkswagen: -3.2 % (-14.4 %)
Audi: -6.1 % (-9.3 %)
Mercedes: -1.5 % (-23.5 %)
BMW: -9.7 % (-35.9 %)
Toyota: -16 % (-37 %)
 
gtrietsc said:
I agree - report the crap, just saying report it equally.
Click to expand...


We must be listening to diff media, the local news and papers mention toyotas declining sales a lot here. Your news reporting must be biased just where you live.

And I don't understand your logic for starting this thread. If you truly want the domestic car companie to do well, don't you want to be more aware of the status of the domestics vs their foreign competition? And with that increased awareness, perhaps more public pressure/support to help raise the game of the domestic manufacturers.
 
Not sure what to tell you about different media. I took that screencap from CNN.com. Perhaps you get a different CNN.com where you live, wherever that is. Since you are in "Lil Osaka", maybe that explains why you hear more about Toyota. ??

The point I was making is that the media love to bash the big three, but when a Japanese maker has a problem it is rarely if ever a breaking news item.
 
Ah, the ameri-whining is going again. Seriously, of course the AMERICAN press is more interested in AMERICAN car makers. Here in the press they talk about Audi and BMW and not about Isuzu selling 50% less small shitboxes.
 
If something?s stinking in your own front yard, it?s completley normal to check that out before worrying if there is stink in you neihbours yard too ... over here we say "clean up your own mess first".

Of course Us media covers the problems of the Us car industry a lot closer than they would cover those of other nations. The german media cover the problems of the german car industry more too and even if it is about GM or Ford, it?s more like "what does that mean for Opel or Euro-Ford". Comes only natural.
 
I'm sorry, but if a foreign automaker has a large market share, they should be covered equally. Why is that so hard to grasp? Dont you think recalls are bigger news for instance for a maker like Toyota, that now has such a large US marketshare, and therefore a large customer base in the US?
 
LOL. I like Subaru, and glad they didn't slide backwards (of course, they are up for the year, still down in December only from 2007.)

Plus the difference is a few hundred cars. But its not a negative so that's a win in my book.
 
gtrietsc said:
I don't think I need to tell most people on the board here in the US that you rarely here negative press about foriegn automakers. If there is a recall announced from Ford or Chevy, it is front page news, but a recall by another maker like Toyota, if mentioned, is Page 6 at best.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that the Big Three pull stupid shit stunts like this and the imports don't?

http://www.autosafety.org/uploads/phpq3mJ7F_FordMemo.pdf

What that is is a copy of the infamous "Pinto memo" wherein the execs at Ford conclude that since it will cost $121 million to redesign the Pinto so it doesn't explode when hit from behind and that the estimated costs of settling with the estates of people killed when their Pintos exploded would "only" be $50 million, they should just let the Pinto design be and let people die instead.

GM and Chrysler were caught doing similarly callous and stupid things, at about the same timeframe - though none that could be proven to have directly caused deaths, or that had fatal consequences. GM's "oopsie" was the Vega engine debacle; Chrysler's offense wasn't as severe, it was just that they kept cranking out Aspens and Volares when they knew the cars were crap, the customers knew they were crap, and the dealers knew they were crap - and then they wouldn't honor the warranties when the cars fell apart.
 
Spectre said:
Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that the Big Three pull stupid shit stunts like this and the imports don't?

http://www.autosafety.org/uploads/phpq3mJ7F_FordMemo.pdf

What that is is a copy of the infamous "Pinto memo" wherein the execs at Ford conclude that since it will cost $121 million to redesign the Pinto so it doesn't explode when hit from behind and that the estimated costs of settling with the estates of people killed when their Pintos exploded would "only" be $50 million, they should just let the Pinto design be and let people die instead.

GM and Chrysler were caught doing similarly callous and stupid things, at about the same timeframe - though none that could be proven to have directly caused deaths, or that had fatal consequences. GM's "oopsie" was the Vega engine debacle; Chrysler's offense wasn't as severe, it was just that they kept cranking out Aspens and Volares when they knew the cars were crap, the customers knew they were crap, and the dealers knew they were crap - and then they wouldn't honor the warranties when the cars fell apart.
Click to expand...

You probably aren't going to like my response. Just an upfront. :)

While I think that the moral decision to do that calculation is deplorable, the fact is that every car company makes decisions like this. If they didn't, car design would be much different, and most cars would cost much more than they do today. Things like what plastics to use (cheaper reduces cost, but is it more flammable?), etc all go into how safe a car is. But car companies are a business after all, and have to balance the needs of shareholders with everything else.

A good example is the Ford Crown Vic debacle. Ford has had to defend lawsuits based on the idea that a vehicle should always be able to survive a high speed rear impact without fuel spillage. Is this possible? Sure - with a different car that is designed ground up for this purpose, I am sure it could be acheived. Is it cost effective, considering how many millions of miles the Crown Vic platform has been driven by various local, state, and federal agencies? The only answer to that is "no". The number of incidents is VERY small compared to the number of people using it with no problems. This ties back to the Pinto:

As professor Gary Schwartz demonstrated in his 1991 Rutgers Law Review article, the Pinto was as safe as or safer than comparable subcompact cars. Indiana prosecutors acknowledged that the Pinto was no more likely to ?explode? than the average car on the road in the mid-1970s: It comprised 1.9 percent of cars on the road and 1.9 percent of fatal accidents accompanied by fire.
Click to expand...

From: http://www.aei.org/research/liability/publications/pubID.25390,projectID.23/pub_detail.asp

The Pinto thing was, like many things, sensationilized by trial lawyers.

Anyway, back to the original topic...

I just looked at CNN.com, as of 4:15CST and can find no headline mentioned Nissan's recall of 242,000 vehicles announced earlier today.

http://jalopnik.com/5125245/nissan-recalling-243000-xterras-pathfinders-and-frontiers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top