The auto industry’s leading trade journal has put its thumb on the scales in reporting about the 2020 presidential race. Keith Laing’s (2020) comparison of Donald Trump and Joe Biden uses biased language and a story angle that is antagonistic toward climate change regulations.
Early in his story Laing telegraphs Automotive News’ policy views. He states that a Joe Biden presidency “promises more onerous policies on climate change and other issues.” An objective news story would would not use the term “onerous,” but rather a more neutral term such as “additional” or even “tougher.”
Laing (2020) then focuses on the importance of the auto industry presenting a united front. He seems to assume that a diversity of opinion is bad. Why? Foreign automakers more easily handled new emissions, safety and fuel-economy standards in the 1970s through product innovation while U.S. automakers resisted them (Cray, 1980).
Higher fuel-economy standards are bad for whom?
Today we have a parallel situation where electric vehicle start-ups have put pressure on legacy automakers to more quickly address climate change. Laing (2020) does not acknowledge this side of the policy debate. Instead, he quotes Bloomberg analyst James Blatchford, who states that Biden’s greater policy predictability would come “with a trade off — higher mpg standards.”
Also see ‘Automotive News: ‘Go along to get along’ quality fuels groupthink’
Why is increasing fuel economy bad? That may push many automakers to reduce their dependence on larger vehicles with internal combustion engines. And just like in the 1970s, those firms that choose to be more innovative will win out.
Automotive News is on the wrong side of public opinion. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of adults in the U.S. believe that the federal government is not doing enough to reduce the impacts of climate change (Funk and Kennedy, 2020).
To fully appreciate the coloring Laing (2020) gives to his story, read it back to back with a Reuters’ (2020) piece. The latter offers a more balanced — and in-depth — treatment of the topic. (And in fairness to Automotive News, a more recently posted story by Audrey Laforest (2020) offered an appropriately neutral tone.)
Climate change coverage has usually been weak
Let’s be honest: Automotive News’ coverage of climate change has usually been quite weak. As a case in point, the last time this topic was given much attention was in 2007 (Stoffer and Brown, 2007). That was a good 13 years ago (go here for our take).
Could this lack of attention have something to do with the rather rigid, “old-school” views of longtime Editor-in-Chief Keith Crain? For example, Crain (2018) railed against General Motors for endorsing a federal zero-emissions vehicle mandate and disagreeing with the Trump administration’s rollback of fuel economy standards (go here for further discussion).
Crain’s punchline is worth repeating because it appears to inform the framing of Laing’s news story: “For GM to invite a bigger government role marks a big and surprising turnaround after years of resisting federal regulations on vehicle safety, emissions and fuel economy standards,” Crain (2018) complained. “GM’s decision is certainly out of character and could diminish its lobbying influence in the future.”
Why Automotive News should grow a journalistic spine
I get why it could be difficult for Automotive News to significantly up its game on climate change coverage. One need look no further than the comment section of Laing’s story to imagine the blowback.
For example, TJ (2020) inaccurately states that climate change regulation is designed to appeal to “some 12-years-left doomsday cult masquerading as science.”
Also see ‘Automotive News enables denialism and conspiracies about COVID-19’
Nevertheless, Automotive News would do well to consider that the auto media marketplace is rapidly changing. As a case in point, has the publication’s editorial leadership noticed that the comments section of the EV-focused website Electrek tends to be far more robust than their own? Something is happening here.
I doubt that anyone expects Automotive News to become a single-minded champion of EVs. However, the trade journal is more likely to maintain its stature in the coming decade if news articles on climate change policy uphold basic standards of journalistic balance. More depth would also help.
Perhaps Automotive News should draw more from wire services such as Reuters for its political coverage.
RE:SOURCES
- Crain, Keith; 2018. “GM’s latest plea for federal help is a mistake.” Automotive News (subscription required). Posted November 5; accessed March 20, 2019.
- Funk, Cary and Brian Kennedy; 2020. “How Americans see climate change and the environment in 7 charts.” Pew Research Center. posted April 21; accessed October 21.
- Laforest, Audrey; 2020. “Auto trade, environmental policy at stake in U.S. election.” Automotive News (subscription required). Posted October 26; accessed October 26.
- Laing, Keith; 2020. “Shaken up by Trump, auto lobby eyes impact of Biden presidency.” Automotive News (subscription required). Posted October 21; accessed October 21.
- Reuters; 2020. “Higher fuel efficiency, more EVs: Automakers prepare for potential Biden win.” Autoblog. Posted October 21; accessed October 21.
- Stoffer, Harry and Peter Brown; 2007. “The heat is on: How global warming is closing in on the U.S. auto industry.” Automotive News. Posted February 5; accessed November 28, 2018.
- TJ; 2020. Commentator in “Shaken up by Trump, auto lobby eyes impact of Biden presidency.” Automotive News (subscription required). Posted October 21; accessed October 21.
Be the first to comment