KIRO TV doing report on EV Tax

[buzzbuzz]

While the statements by Dahl and Gov. Inslee were positive, they were also very brief and compared to the amount of negative statements they were almost insignificant.

Absolutely agree. Sensationalistic journalism at its finest. It is aggravating that (aside from the fact they gave us the pretense that they wanted to discuss the yearly EV tax, of which they hardly made mention), they completely slanted the argument. Titling the story "high tech freeloaders" was problematic to begin with (aside from the fact that "high-tech" should be hyphenated)...it implies that the tax breaks are only for the rich and for people buying luxury cars (clearly not the case). I get the sense that, once again, the journalists had a story to write and filled in the details as they saw fit.

Certainly frustrating, but I suppose it could have been worse...At least there weren't any Teslas on flatbeds!!!

 

[v12 to 12v]

I took a few classes at the Edward R Murrow Building at WSU myself....and you are right!

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a link to their article. They have a comments section too.

Government subsidizing cool cars for rich people | www.kirotv.com

 

[bollar]

I didn't watch the video, but aside from the headline, the text was fairly reasonable.

 

[ChadS]

The reporter asked me a question about whether we "should" subsidize EVs. I pointed out that I wasn't fond of subsidies, but it only seems fair given that the GAO says we subsidize each gas car to the tune of about $12k (that's direct money to petroleum companies only; it does not include wars, supply security, pollution mitigation, health care costs, etc). He brushed past that and pressed on; I forced him back and went over the numbers with him. I also pointed out that EV subsidies have sunset dates, while petroleum subsidies don't. I also pointed out that kick-starting new technologies that have social benefits is exactly where subsidies with sunset dates make sense (as opposed to over 100-year-old subsidies for some of the most profitable corporations on the planet). He was completely uninterested in any of this, and put none of it in to his report, because it didn't fit with the story he wanted to run.

That's not balanced reporting. That's sensationalism - trying to get viewers for advertisers by riling people up.

 

[SCW-Greg]

@ChadS, good job in sticking to it.

Lesson for the rest of us, should a reporter come knocking... ask them if they want to report "fair and balanced" information, or are they out to create divisiveness.

 

[brianman]

@ChadS, good job in sticking to it.

Lesson for the rest of us, should a reporter come knocking... ask them if they want to report "fair and balanced" information, or are they out to create divisiveness.

Or better yet, ask them the title of their article. If it's clear from the reaction that the title is already established, then the article and reporter are a waste of everyone's time; don't feed them.

 

[Saxena]

So honestly, why do we have to entertain any news agencies? Even a positive local news won't really change any big numbers. The reality is that these low quality reporters just want some kind of fame, positive or negative, thinking they will get the next attention from Elon Musk. My suggestion is that from now on, we do not involve any news agencies and let Elon do the PR the way he thinks is right.

 

[SCW-Greg]

@Saxena, you're actually not too far off in your question, why even talk to them at all? I'm not sure any reporter (on just about any subject) ever gets their stories 100% accurate. Virtually all misquote, usually innocent enough, but will mix information they hear, and transpose facts. In the end, what comes back out, is either mildly wrong, or in some cases wildly inaccurate.

Smart media and PR agencies go to great lengths (when talking with news agencies) to make sure only the info that is needed is offered. Too much info disseminated gets you in to trouble. They want to control the narrative, and not give them additional angles to report or leverage for their own purposes. They will also provide printed material for the reporter to take with them with only the facts and details they need. Even then, misquotes happen, but the error rates are at least mitigated.

 

[Six]

So honestly, why do we have to entertain any news agencies? Even a positive local news won't really change any big numbers. The reality is that these low quality reporters just want some kind of fame, positive or negative, thinking they will get the next attention from Elon Musk. My suggestion is that from now on, we do not involve any news agencies and let Elon do the PR the way he thinks is right.

I agree there is little point in talking to "reporters". Oddly enough one of the things that offended me the most is that they described this as an "investigative report".

What investigation? EV subsidies are hardly a secret and then getting a few comments from people on the street (even if one is a governor) and throwing it all under a misleading, opinionated, ratings grabbing title is not even journalism and certainly not investigative journalism.

 

[buzzbuzz]

So honestly, why do we have to entertain any news agencies?

I, too, think it is a valid question and, quite honestly, the answer is we don't. That said, I've had other quality news interviews regarding the Model S that have been quite positive and they reported on exactly what they said they would report on

My suggestion is that from now on, we do not involve any news agencies and let Elon do the PR the way he thinks is right.

I agree there is little point in talking to "reporters".

I agree that talking with "reporters" (note the quotes) is a bad idea. In the day of the 24-hour news cycle, the best we can hope for is sound bites. However, quality reporters can still make quality stories, so, I think Brianman is right...a little more investigation on our part as to what the reporter is shooting for is probably the best idea. I've run into both types of reporters in my life...the bad ones leave a very sour taste for the news. The good news is that, in the day of the 24-hour news cycle, no one is going to care about this tomorrow...

What I'd really like to know is how many car shoppers in Kent they talked to before they got the sound bites they wanted for the article...

EDIT: one more thing...I just checked the written article. There are 4 comments at the bottom of the page...all 4 disagree with what the article is presenting. Apparently, it didn't make that much of an impact...