Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

michaels

The value from newspaper websites is in page clicks.  It would appear that in some newspapers stories that present EVs in a negative light get lots of clicks, so many such stories are run even if it means recycling the same material every few weeks - no need for a conspiracy theory, simple economics

Exiled_Tyke

JKenH said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Who's TRYING To KILL The ELECTRIC CAR? And What Can You Do About It?

Thanks for posting this Martyn. This is Brilliant. And prompted a couple of thoughts: 

1. My diesel Audi needed a service shortly before I changed it. The garage came to pick it up and saw my charger on the wall (in expectation of the new car) and came out with now familiar vitriol to that referenced in this video. I really couldn't understand it but I do now. (He was also damning about the fact the car used AdBlue (which I think is a real benefit to diesel vehicles)  

2. The Rowan Atkinson story they refer to  (I do wonder who wrote it and who paid him to put it in his name) shows the relatively gentle way that misinformation (sorry 'lies') can be spread.  It reminded me (without getting into the political debate) of how similar nonsense arguments were delivered to appear quite plausibly in other situations, most noticeably Brexit and also PR).   For completeness I thought it useful to post a link to the rebuttal of the Rowan Atkinson story which is interesting to both set the record straight but also to illustrate the subtle ways in which the truth is manipulated to mislead.   

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles#:~:text=While many details of the,fuelling petrol and diesel cars

Let us all beware! 

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with the notion that Big Oil or other vested interests are somehow responsible for the negative stories appearing in UK newspapers. These statements are made without providing any evidence to support them. I can’t believe anyone would seriously think that Rowan Atkinson was paid by some anti EV organisation to publish his article. He is a well known petrolhead and probably just wasn’t very happy with his EV experience. 

It's not like the oil industry owns 20% of the world's wealth and might like to keep it that way?

I am sure they would but that doesn’t mean they are sponsoring the negative articles about EVs that are appearing in UK newspapers. I don’t  know the exact statistics but only a small minority of the population own EVs and the newspaper industry may be more interested in pleasing the majority who don’t own EVs. Possibly they believe more people will enjoy reading bad news about EVs than good news. I can imagine the queues reported at Tesla chargers one Christmas just confirmed for many Daily Mail readers what they already “knew”. I doubt that the average Daily Mail or Telegraph reader would consider Fully Charged particularly even handed in their reporting either.

It's not like Big Oil have ever tried anything similar before, you know like pulling massive long-term PR campaigns of lies to protect their interests.    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

JKenH

I have seen specialist EV channels occasionally use anti EV headlines to draw in new viewers and then start off by apologising click bait headline before setting about demolishing the anti EV rhetoric. 

Maybe we are just hard wired to focus on bad news, as this article suggests, and the newspapers play on that. 

Psychology: Why bad news dominates the headlines

The researchers present their experiment as solid evidence of a so called "negativity bias", psychologists' term for our collective hunger to hear, and remember bad news.

There's another interpretation that Trussler and Soroka put on their evidence: we pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is. 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140728-why-is-all-the-news-bad

The link to the Wikipedia page on negativity bias in the article is worth a read. From The Wikipedia article

Studies reported in a paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General by Carey Morewedge (2009) found that people exhibit a negativity bias in attribution of external agency, such that they are more likely to attribute negative outcomes to the intentions of another person than similar neutral and positive outcomes.

Perhaps we are getting too hung up on this. Look how much bad press VW over Dieselgate but has it impacted on the brand’s sales? I hadn’t owned a VW before Dieselgate but have bought three since.

There is a saying that “all publicity is good publicity”. Just Stop Oil get a terrible press yet we have all now heard of them and their message. Why has everyone heard of Tesla? All the bad publicity and Tesla bashing has made them a household name. 

On the other hand, they say “mud sticks”. 

Edit: it might just be an iPad formatting issue but the first two lines of my post disappeared and were replaced by “Spoiler”. Clicking on Spoiler they reappeared but when I opened the post in a new window neither the first 2 paragraphs or spoiler were there. 

This is what I can see - what you see might be different.

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Who's TRYING To KILL The ELECTRIC CAR? And What Can You Do About It?

Thanks for posting this Martyn. This is Brilliant. And prompted a couple of thoughts: 

1. My diesel Audi needed a service shortly before I changed it. The garage came to pick it up and saw my charger on the wall (in expectation of the new car) and came out with now familiar vitriol to that referenced in this video. I really couldn't understand it but I do now. (He was also damning about the fact the car used AdBlue (which I think is a real benefit to diesel vehicles)  

2. The Rowan Atkinson story they refer to  (I do wonder who wrote it and who paid him to put it in his name) shows the relatively gentle way that misinformation (sorry 'lies') can be spread.  It reminded me (without getting into the political debate) of how similar nonsense arguments were delivered to appear quite plausibly in other situations, most noticeably Brexit and also PR).   For completeness I thought it useful to post a link to the rebuttal of the Rowan Atkinson story which is interesting to both set the record straight but also to illustrate the subtle ways in which the truth is manipulated to mislead.   

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles#:~:text=While many details of the,fuelling petrol and diesel cars

Let us all beware! 

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with the notion that Big Oil or other vested interests are somehow responsible for the negative stories appearing in UK newspapers. These statements are made without providing any evidence to support them. I can’t believe anyone would seriously think that Rowan Atkinson was paid by some anti EV organisation to publish his article. He is a well known petrolhead and probably just wasn’t very happy with his EV experience. 

It's not like the oil industry owns 20% of the world's wealth and might like to keep it that way?

I am sure they would but that doesn’t mean they are sponsoring the negative articles about EVs that are appearing in UK newspapers. I don’t  know the exact statistics but only a small minority of the population own EVs and the newspaper industry may be more interested in pleasing the majority who don’t own EVs. Possibly they believe more people will enjoy reading bad news about EVs than good news. I can imagine the queues reported at Tesla chargers one Christmas just confirmed for many Daily Mail readers what they already “knew”. I doubt that the average Daily Mail or Telegraph reader would consider Fully Charged particularly even handed in their reporting either.

It's not like Big Oil have ever tried anything similar before, you know like pulling massive long-term PR campaigns of lies to protect their interests.    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

That may be true but that doesn’t mean you can lay the bad press EVs are getting in the UK at their door. We don’t live in a society where you can go around lynching the local !!!!!! just because he has form. (At least I hope we don’t). If there is some evidence that Big Oil or the establishment auto is behind what’s in the Daily Mail or Express then let’s see it. I really don’t think there is a conspiracy and maintaining there is may marginalise the RE/EV community. It is important to understand that we all see the world differently.

Some of us have had very satisfactory experiences with EVs but of course some haven’t, just as some of us have had good experiences with the NHS but others perhaps not so good. The bad experiences may be those of a minority but they have a story to tell that appeals to the press. 

Where’s the story in turning up at a charger plugging in, tapping your card and getting a successful charge. Who wants to read that (except an EV fan)? Newspapers publish stories people want to read. What a Guardian reader wants is different to what a Daily Mail or Express reader wants. We often share what we read with family or friends.

Imagine you are eating your lunch in the works van with your workmates. Assuming they aren’t already EV owners which story might be the best conversation starter? “I read a story in the paper today about this bloke who went to charge his car, no problem, only took 20 minutes and he was stopping for a coffee anyway” or “I was reading the paper about this guy with his wife and two young kids who had a hell of a time trying to get his car charged on the way to see the grandparents. All the chargers were busy at the services so he had to drive to the next service station and the chargers weren’t working. Poor geyser, he hadn’t enough charge to get any further, so had to sit for an hour or more on a slow charger to get enough charge to get to another charger. The kids started crying so they had to go into the services and get some food. Cost him 20 quid just for food and the electric cost him as much as using a petrol car. After another stop to top his battery up it took him 2 hours longer than it would in his old petrol car to get to the grandparents and  by the time the got to the pub for lunch they’d stopped serving. B****y electric cars, wouldn’t have one if it was given to me”.

Now of course any EV owner would rip the story to shreds but the majority of people aren’t EV owners and to them it’s just a story to confirm their prejudices and share with their mates who have a similar perspective on life. While some people might feel the press have a duty to educate the public to travel in a preferred direction, their objective is actually to make money for the owners (Guardian excepted, although they still have to balance their books) by giving the reader what he wants to read. If they don’t someone else will.

Is what the press is telling us about EVs actually “lies” or is it simply focussing on isolated incidents and experiences of EV ownership that their readers will enjoy, without the balance we would like to see? It seems to me that it isn’t even balance we are after but just good news stories and a suppression of the bad ones because we want to educate the population to adopt our values. 

It is inevitable that there will be a push back in the popular press about net zero as the government is seeking to change the way we live our lives, how we heat our homes and what cars we drive. People aren’t always keen on change particularly when it is forced on them. That is what is happening and the country may well be divided as to whether that is a good or bad thing. On this board it is almost universally accepted that it is the right thing to do but that might not be the feeling of the population as a whole. The press will watch the mood of the people and deliver stories to their demographic that maintains their share of the newspaper/media market. For some papers like the Guardian with a progressive (whatever that means) readership, change will be embraced and encouraged but other more conservative papers like the Daily Mail or Telegraph may perceive their readership as not yet ready for the net zero era and it is in their interests to resist change. 

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Who's TRYING To KILL The ELECTRIC CAR? And What Can You Do About It?

Thanks for posting this Martyn. This is Brilliant. And prompted a couple of thoughts: 

1. My diesel Audi needed a service shortly before I changed it. The garage came to pick it up and saw my charger on the wall (in expectation of the new car) and came out with now familiar vitriol to that referenced in this video. I really couldn't understand it but I do now. (He was also damning about the fact the car used AdBlue (which I think is a real benefit to diesel vehicles)  

2. The Rowan Atkinson story they refer to  (I do wonder who wrote it and who paid him to put it in his name) shows the relatively gentle way that misinformation (sorry 'lies') can be spread.  It reminded me (without getting into the political debate) of how similar nonsense arguments were delivered to appear quite plausibly in other situations, most noticeably Brexit and also PR).   For completeness I thought it useful to post a link to the rebuttal of the Rowan Atkinson story which is interesting to both set the record straight but also to illustrate the subtle ways in which the truth is manipulated to mislead.   

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles#:~:text=While many details of the,fuelling petrol and diesel cars

Let us all beware! 

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with the notion that Big Oil or other vested interests are somehow responsible for the negative stories appearing in UK newspapers. These statements are made without providing any evidence to support them. I can’t believe anyone would seriously think that Rowan Atkinson was paid by some anti EV organisation to publish his article. He is a well known petrolhead and probably just wasn’t very happy with his EV experience. 

It's not like the oil industry owns 20% of the world's wealth and might like to keep it that way?

I am sure they would but that doesn’t mean they are sponsoring the negative articles about EVs that are appearing in UK newspapers. I don’t  know the exact statistics but only a small minority of the population own EVs and the newspaper industry may be more interested in pleasing the majority who don’t own EVs. Possibly they believe more people will enjoy reading bad news about EVs than good news. I can imagine the queues reported at Tesla chargers one Christmas just confirmed for many Daily Mail readers what they already “knew”. I doubt that the average Daily Mail or Telegraph reader would consider Fully Charged particularly even handed in their reporting either.

It's not like Big Oil have ever tried anything similar before, you know like pulling massive long-term PR campaigns of lies to protect their interests.    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

Yep, have to wonder why, despite the many decades that oil refining has been using (and losing) Cobalt, we never really heard anything about the DRC. Then as soon as BEV's arrive, with batts that use Cobalt, it's all over the news.

At least the amount of batteries that use Cobalt is falling, and those that do can use less, and it can be recycled. Plus the extra attention will hopefully help to improve conditions for those at risk of exploitation, as never before.

But, as the vid suggested, and Michaels mentions, it looks like it's down to clicks. Some folk, possibly due to confirmation bias, lap up the dodgy negative information, and the articles do well, so the Editor calls for more of the same.

Just like all the silly nonsense that was said about RE 10+ years ago, and storage 5yrs ago to now(ish), it'll all blow over in time, as reality steadily trumps the disinformation. But it was a bit of a shock to see just how much the 'BEV news' is/was being manipulated in the UK. Hopefully it's just a vocal minority, who are simply scared of change, which is, tbf, entirely normal.

The 'battle' certainly isn't over, but as prices improve (especially for SH BEV's), and the selection/choice expands, and the charging infrastructure (slow and rapid) grows and improves, it should all blow over. Just need to get those bums on seats.

JKenH

Jaguar Land Rover-owner to spend £4bn on UK battery factory

Jaguar Land Rover-owner Tata has confirmed plans to build its flagship electric car battery factory in the UK.

The new plant in Somerset is expected to create 4,000 UK jobs and thousands more in the wider supply chain.

Tata said it will invest £4bn in the site but it is understood that the government is providing subsidies worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66237935

Exiled_Tyke

Meanwhile (as if we needed more evidence!)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-climate-pledges-extreme-heat-fossil-fuel

There's too many quotes to choose from but I'll settle for this one for now:

'No matter what strategy they employ at any given time, the industry has “done everything they can to block climate action and keep us dependent on their products”'

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Meanwhile (as if we needed more evidence!)

Yes, Naomi Oreskes may think oil companies are evil, but that is not evidence that they are controlling the content of EV discussion or paying Rowan Atkinson and others to spout anti EV propaganda in UK newspapers? 

I am surprised that you consider this proves your case. 

Edited for brevity (not my strong point)

thevilla

Of course there's no proof and everyone likes a good conspiracy theory.

I don't imagine the huge advertising budget of the oil industry is spent at random though.  Maybe sprinkled more liberally on those who have the right attitude against EVs?

shinytop

Exiled_Tyke said:

Meanwhile (as if we needed more evidence!)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-climate-pledges-extreme-heat-fossil-fuel

There's too many quotes to choose from but I'll settle for this one for now:

'No matter what strategy they employ at any given time, the industry has “done everything they can to block climate action and keep us dependent on their products”'

Whenever I see anything written using the term "Bigxxx" in a serious/non-ironic way, where xxx = oil, pharma, tech, etc., I stop reading it/don't open the link on the assumption it's conspiracy theory nonsense written by raving tin foil hatters.