The mainstream media’s (MSM) reporting on GM’s “troubles” has evolved. Initially, the press told its audience that The General’s terminal glide path was all part of the wider economic meltdown. As the company augers in for its June 1 federally mandated Chapter 11, the reality of the situation is filtering down the info-food chain. The story has moved from financial reports to the general news to the sharp end: car reviews. For example: today’s Washington Post carries a review of the Pontiac G8 GXP that lauds the Australian V8 four door as “part old-fashioned American muscle car, part sophisticated European performance ride.” And then . . . “That’s good news. But here’s hoping it doesn’t come too late in the news cycle for GM.” Right: stupid news cycle. I blame the news cycle for GM’s upcoming bankruptcy.
You’ve read the headlines, heard and seen the news reports. The century-old GM, once a mainstay of American industrial might, is in trouble, at risk of no longer remaining a going concern. It messed up in the 1970s and 1980s, producing the motorized equivalent of schlock, including a bevy of Pontiacs that barely qualified as rental cars.
Pontiac, which had once truly lived up to the title “the excitement division,” became GM’s “whatever” shop.
It took time and money — tens of billions of dollars — to set all of that right. And just when it seemed that GM was getting things fixed, the bottom fell out of the national and global economies, scaring buyers out of new-car showrooms and almost putting GM out of business.
That’s too bad. And here’s hoping that GM can hold on, because the G8 GXP proves that GM can and does make darned good cars.
How times have changed. While this review’s digression doesn’t represent a “come to Jesus” moment by the Washington Post’s longtime Detroit apologist, at least Warren Brown is admitting the fact of GM’s beeline for C11. [The print version carries Brown’s byline, the online does not.] To quote Buzz Lightyear (the animated character, not the TTAC commentator), it’s not denial—it’s apology, with style! [NB: this post has been modified since publishing, because I gave Brown WAY too much credit for reality checking.]
Thank you for explaining what “MSM” stands for. I thought maybe it had something to do with Microsoft, colorectal disorders, or both.
When the mainstream media jumps onto a bandwagon, that is usually the end of the ride. Does this mean GM is about to mount a surprise comeback? If so I’m sure TTAC will spot it first.
GM’s only hope is that its instant demise will be announced on the cover of Business Week. Once BW calls a trend it definitely – what was the expression? – jumped the shark.
Since when has the MSM been on the cutting edge of any major breaking story? The tech bubble? The Iraq war? The housing bubble? The financial meltdown?
The MSM usually waits until the story has already broken and then reports mainly in pictures and on the emotional reaction of the people affected. It also never covers the complex causes of such events, as even in retrospect, they just don’t make good TV or good reading.
So one C11 is announced for GM, the MSM will cover the reaction from the autoworkers and ask the man on the street how they feel about it but will most likely never pause to ask why and how.
The writer probably is Warren Brown, as Mary Anne is Brown’s wife. I’ll check the print edition later today when I get a chance.
carguy wrote: The MSM usually waits until the story has already broken and then reports mainly in pictures and on the emotional reaction of the people affected. It also never covers the complex causes of such events, as even in retrospect, they just don’t make good TV or good reading.
True, except for your last point. You see, the complexities usually do make good reading. It’s just that, often, the complexities do not fit in nicely with the MSM’s political agenda.
To the MSM, news is only news if it serves a purpose. Anytime you read a story from AP, or a major newspaper (WSJ sometimes excepted), it is there to back up a political point. Sometimes the point is cleverly concealed, mostly it is explicit. In some instances, though, they have to run a story, because it’s actually news. Then, the political commentary is formulated later, in the editorial offices.
mpresley – I personally don’t believe in theories of hidden agendas or conspiracies. The MSM delivers what people want to read and their slant not only reflects their target audience opinions but is also designed to re-confirm them – certainly not challenge them. That’s why on MSNBC Obama walks on water while on Fox he is hailed as our first fascist dictator. The problem is that there is no money to be made from having political agendas – if you deliver a message that your audience doesn’t like they will simply change the channel.
I would say the MSM is info-tainment as it worst. They don’t lead on anything, lack any hint of curiosity or courage and are simply there to provide lukewarm entertainment dressed as news to a carefully researched target audience.
Richard is correct, it’s bylined in the print edition by Warren Brown. I’m not sure why anybody would think anything different (or significant) just because it’s missing from the online link. The writing style is classic Brown, including his comments about GM whether one agrees with them or not.
Interesting you show one of the few “good ones”, the Aussie Pontiac. Saw it at the car show and it blew away everything but Caddy in terms of build quality….especially the new Camaro, very pretty but built like crap inside (just like every other Camaro in the world)
The MSM usually waits until the story has already broken and then reports mainly in pictures and on the emotional reaction of the people affected.
Very good point. A lot of what we call news is really just a summary of what occurred at a planned event or a press conference.
Since there was no GM Is Melting Down press conference held five years ago, they didn’t talk about it. That’s why you can’t turn to mainstream media to spot trends in advance; they are almost always late, because they are reactive by nature.
Who should have caught it were the business press and the stock analysts. The bond rating, market share and earnings were all falling, so those should have been big hints. But like the regular news crews, they tend to limit themselves to summarizing official statements, so since Rick Wagoner didn’t tell them that the wheels were falling off, most of them didn’t try to prove otherwise.
Anytime you read a story from AP, or a major newspaper (WSJ sometimes excepted), it is there to back up a political point.
The Wall Street Journal is now owned by Murdoch, the same people who brought you Fox News. Sorry, but if there is a biased paper out there, it’s the WSJ. I read it and find useful things from it, but it clearly has a political agenda, and that ship is tilting starboard.
“and just when it seemed GM was getting all of that fixed” ??!!!!?? WTF ? When was that? Things were going to turn around before the economic meltdown? What planet is this guy on?
“It took time and money – tens of billions of dollars- to set all of that right”. For Pontiac? For GM ? Does the G3 count? The Torrent?, The Red Toe Tag Events every month ? The $10,000 apiece lost on the Solstice and the Sky? The GTO ? Astra? The crossover clones, the mini van clones the SUV clones? Saab? Just offer another division’s product from another country, slap a domestic name on it and that’s “getting all of that fixed” ?
Sorry RF. This clown is in no danger of “getting it” any time soon. Unless “it” is a head cold.
Exactly when was the institutionalized arrogance or wildly overpaid and over-staffed top-heavy management fixed?
I want to buy one of these cars but not sure if GM will be around to support them. Seems as though I have been turned into a GM fan away from the appliances that are Toyondasan.
There has been some good reporting by the MSM, here’s an article from Fortune: The Tragedy of General Motors. Too late to make a difference, though, it’s from 2006. FTA:
Bankruptcy isn’t going to occur next week. But down the road–say, past 2006 –its probability is high. That point of view seems supported by the opinions of the bond-rating agencies, which troubled companies must keep informed and which become virtual insiders in their understanding of a company’s finances and operations. In recent months both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have made increasingly grim statements, bald in their talk of bankruptcy and laden with doubts that GM can turn around its reeling North American auto operations, now reduced to an embarrassing market share of 26%.
“especially the new Camaro, very pretty but built like crap inside (just like every other Camaro in the world)”
WTF? Sat in the new Camaro. Quality car. Don’t know what you were looking at…
WSJ had an article on why Obama will not let the automaker formally known as the most profitable corporation and largest car maker in the world go bankrupt. The union………….
I wonder if people are right and they do go bankrupt that won’t mean the cars on the lot are going to be discounted with rebates anymore, the dealers would have to declare bankruptcy too right? How are they going to move the metal 80% of Americans don’t want, either because of brand perception or because they already have 1 or 2 cars from the days of easy credit?
People should remember even when the market was 16 million cars in 2006, GM still turned a 2 billion loss on 207 billion in sales.
The $64,000 question is if they go bankrupt can I get a car at a steep discount or will the new company during bankruptcy not help to do that? Circuit City went bankrupt and prices went up! Do the dealers have to foot the bill if GM goes belly up for the cars on their lots?
Robert, I can’t imagine why you think there is any “slam” in this piece. It’s an argument why GM is worth saving, and lies outright (as DweezilSFV ably points out). Its admission of GM’s decline is put in “that was then, this is now” terms, and would not have been included in the text except that its writer would have lost credibility by cheerleading without this flimsy figleaf. GM’s problem, of course, is that “the bottom fell out of the national and global economies” – not crappy cars, narcisstic leadership, and tough competition. In fact GM has the world-spanning vision to produce a vehicle that’s “part old-fashioned American muscle car, part sophisticated European performance ride.” Wow. Such an excellent company can surely rise again, with, Oh, $500 billion in taxpayer money over the next 20 years.
Pch101 : The Wall Street Journal is now owned by Murdoch, the same people who brought you Fox News. Sorry, but if there is a biased paper out there, it’s the WSJ. I read it and find useful things from it, but it clearly has a political agenda, and that ship is tilting starboard.
The Journal is a curious creature. Many of its reporters appear quite liberal. Its editorial page is pro-immigration, usually supports a neo-conservative foreign policy, but also supports fiscal conservatism. Sometimes they do very good work: the Madoff coverage was first rate, for instance. Usually you do not find “feel good” stories based on emotion (as is common in other papers), and the overall content is geared toward a thinking person with more than a basic education. It is probably the best mass market paper out there, in spite of its faults.
I think the difference between Fox and the WSJ, and the rest of nearly all media outlets (LA/NY/Chicago papers, major networks, etc.) is that Fox and WSJ wear the conservative badge, while the others seem to operate under some self fabricated umbrella of objectivity.
This is a joke… you’d have to be asleep at the wheel to miss the gross bias in most media outlets. As for the WSJ, interestingly, they are not consistently conservative. For example, they are clearly pro-“illegal” immigration due to the financial benefit to companies – something most conservatives find antithetical to core conservative principles.
Its editorial page is pro-immigration
That’s a libertarian, pro-business stance. Free flow of labor and capital, free trade with minimal restraints on the ability of workers to enter and leave to serve demand.
The WSJ view may not mesh with the populists within the GOP or with the Christian Right, but that is not “liberal,” either. It is more closely aligned with the values held by the Republican party before Reagan turned it into a Christian movement that appealed to former Dixiecrats. The motivations and mechanisms are different.
Part of the problem with these sorts of discussions is the penchant on the right for black-and-white thinking, with the “if it ain’t with us, it must be against us” ethos. Just because its something that the Bible thumpers haven’t blessed doesn’t necessarily make it socialist, left, pinko commie, etc.
The reality is that there are various shades of both wings. They may have largely vanished from the planet, but we even used to have liberal Republicans, who were socially liberal but fiscal conservatives. Once upon a time, the differences between the parties were economic, not moralistic, and the WSJ has come from that place for a very long time.
Pch101:there is a biased paper out there, it’s the WSJ. Well, before Murdoch took it over it was schizoid. The editorial page was troglodyte belief-based right wing, but the front page was fact-based cutting-edge and sometimes even left wing (more from facts than belief)…and a NSFW-ing up executive suite that came to their attention would expect to get the crispy-crittur treatment on the front page in front of God and everybody. I imagine that M. has put a stop to that.
This danged mouse won’t click me out of Politico…
Hmm, do they also mention that the G8’s production was cut by 97% some time ago, so that they are becoming about as rare – and useful – as hen’s teeth?
Who should have caught it were the business press and the stock analysts. The bond rating, market share and earnings were all falling, so those should have been big hints.
Well, many have been selling the stock down (most likely on the basis of analysis) for a good few years, so someone has been doing their job/reading.
I agree on the press side, but within our company the investment advisers/analysts have had all our clients OUT of GM (and Ford) for the past 7 years at least (that’s as far back as the onscreen records go).
BTW, we’ve been “in” Toyota for exactly the same amount of time, and I personally bought some Toyota a few weeks ago below $60/share.
I personally don’t believe in theories of hidden agendas or conspiracies. The MSM delivers what people want to read and their slant not only reflects their target audience opinions but is also designed to re-confirm them – certainly not challenge them. That’s why on MSNBC Obama walks on water while on Fox he is hailed as our first fascist dictator. The problem is that there is no money to be made from having political agendas – if you deliver a message that your audience doesn’t like they will simply change the channel.
And this is exactly why newspapers are failing and network news programs are losing viewers. Because of the blatent bias and crap reporting that is given.
People (unconstrained) like playing God. In fact, this idea is so popular, we now have video games to play God. These video games come with the titles such as “The Sims,” “The SimCity,” or”The Sim Ants.”
And MSM, Main Stream Media loves to play this role. It’s like they are playing with the ant colony. They feed ant killing chemicals but not enough to kill them all. When the ant’s number diminishes, they stop the chemical, and let the ants number grow. Then, they apply ant killing chemical again. They do this over and over. However, this time around, they might have killed the whole thing. They regret that they actually have killed the ants and maybe wishing it back so they can play with the ants.
Every news story is like playing god to them.
And this is exactly why newspapers are failing and network news programs are losing viewers. Because of the blatent bias and crap reporting that is given.
They’ve always been biased; this is nothing new. The problem they have is twofold:
* The providers are too large. Between substantial costs and unsustainable debt, big media is not financially viable.
* News is a commodity. When you have any number of organizations providing shallow, low-offense coverage with little or no value-add, you do two things: no one has any core market to fall back on, and the viewing public becomes extremely fickle.
There’s no compelling reason to stick with any one provider of news, not when the differentiation is non-existent and no one company provides anything above and beyond it’s competitors. And now they’re in a death spiral: they can’t grow by being better, so they have to grow by getting bigger and outlasting their competition in one big, ugly game of attrition. This leads to more consolidation, more debt, and more pablum-style content.
And then it all comes crashing down. Or at least that’s my hope. What I don’t want is a media landscape that consists of two companies and a gentlemen’s agreement to not ‘rock the boat’.
If you count book publishing as part of the MSM, there’s Brock Yates’ book that’s 26 years old now. He pretty much called all their problems, if not the 15-year reprieve the SUV boom bought for them.
The Wall Street Journal’s position is the classic big business position. They favor illegal immigrants because they’re easy to exploit and they drive down the price of all labor. The Journal favors low taxes, low services, and a balanced budget. Those positions used to be those of the Republican Party before the fundamentalist Christian wing started to dominate it in the 1980s.
I wish Putz would put on a dunce cap and drive a G8 into the sunset of retirement.
Nobody at a Pontiac dealership would call the G8 a good car. To them it is career and family killer that takes food out of their offsprings mouths. In many ways it is a far worse car than the Grand Prix.
POS.
Isn’t Warren Brown the hack who said that not bailing out the Big Three would be racist?