AOL imitates journalism poorly

[my future me]

Under the front page headline 'Why 'Clunkers' Failed' AOL Autos Editor-in-Chief William Jeanes writes:

Cash for Clunkers Buyers Suffer Buyer's Remorse, Won't Save Fuel

According to a survey of new-vehicle buyers who participated in the recent Cash for Clunkers program, more than 17 percent now harbor “some” doubt or “serious” doubt about letting a government subsidy convince them to go further into debt. CNW Research of Bandon, Oregon, a firm specializing in automotive marketing research, conducted the survey in late August.

. . .

CNW surveyed drivers involved in the purchase of the first 239,000 C4C vehicles. The average intended annual mileage was 10,894, up from the actual clunker mileage of 6,162. For those of you without a calculator falling readily to hand, that’s nearly double.

But what about that miles-per-gallon improvement we were promised? Well, we got it. The average fuel economy reported by C4C buyers rose from 16.3 mpg for Old Dobbin to 24.8 for the new carriage. A monster step in the right direction. Add to that the over-90-percent reduction in tailpipe excretions and we’re still looking good, right?

Not as good as we might. The new car, because it’s new and fun and green and clean and smells good, will be given some 61 additional gallons each year by its grateful owner. For those first 239,000 C4C vehicles, that’s 14.6 million gallons that the clunkers wouldn’t have gobbled up. The approximately 700,000 total vehicles moved under the program will therefore use an additional 42 million gallons of fuel annually during the first years of ownership.

. . .

I admit that from the outset I was suspicious of the scheme. Its very name, the Car Allowance Rebate System, occasioned seditious thoughts. Exactly how many fresh-faced little bureaucrats did it take to devise such an overwhelmingly clever acronym (CARS)? Why couldn’t they have just called it Cash for Clunkers like the rest of us? Or used the ubiquitous C4C, and alphanumeric doubtless created by the thumbs of a creative texter within minutes of the program’s announcement?

Better still, why didn’t they call it P2P, as in robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Full Article <http://autos.aol.com/article/cash-for-clunkers-greenwash>

While reading this article it seemed that the numbers Jeanes was quoting from CNW Research seemed both arbitrary and contrived. So I decided to do some basic research on CNW Research.

First and foremost, there is absolutely no information on CNW's website <http://www.cnwmr.com/> outside of a PO Box and an e-mail address. They do not list any qualifications, clients, or funding. They link to two of their own reports both labeled "DUST to DUST". In their DUST to DUST 2005-2006, they claim that the Hummer, specifically the H2 and H3, is more cost effective per mile over its lifetime than a Prius. To obtain this conclusion, they essentially fudge the numbers. They estimate that the average Prius only drives 6,000 miles per year, and in total will only accumulate 106,000 miles over the course of the its lifetime. This is compared to the estimated 300,000 miles that the average Hummer will put onto the road. They also add in several person to person sales. This report has been debunked by both the Pacific Institute <http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf> and Slate <http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/pagenum/all/#page_start>.

In a little aside, they same way that CNW claims (in 2006)the Prius drivers will drive only 6,000 miles per year; CNW claims (in 2009) that the new fuel-efficient cars will drive 11,000 miles per year.

CNW Research also discusses how bankruptcy would decimate GM <http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/08/22/2008-08-22_how_bankruptcy_would_wreck_gm_and_chrysl.html> and discusses the pollution of hybrid cars <http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/04/23/story8.html?page=2>.

I have no idea who funds CNW Research. However, it is apparent that not only do they have a bias against "green-cars", but their research methods are incredibly shoddy. Take a look at their only publicly available report "Dust to Dust". In this, CNW makes awful assumptions in order to twist the numbers to their pre-drawn conclusions. CNW Research, however, is not the focus of this rant. That honor belongs to the author of the article, William Jeanes. It's obvious to the reader that he is predisposed to dislike Cash for Clunkers. That is well within his right, but citing a non-credible source as the basis for a rant against Cash for Clunkers is bad journalism.

At what point to journalists start to critically analyze the conclusions of a report before they decide to cite it as evidence?

[Joanie Baloney]

1. I just finished reading that article myself

and was really pissed off. Thank you for making me feel a little less crazy.

The author's tone really sets the stage, doesn't it?

Buttwipe. :(

-JB

[WCGreen]

2. AOL is still around....

Go figure...