Tesla on O'Reilly Factor - 11/23/11

[DrTaras]

Tesla & EVs have brought together a unique patch-quilt of people from varied parts of the political spectrum. From "Green" Liberals who see it as good for the environment to "War Hawk" Conservatives who see it as reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News (reaches nearly 6 million people nightly) had a show on 11/23/11 in which a five-minute segment was devoted to Tesla.
The obvious reach was to try and tie it to government social-engineering and Solyndra.

It was upsetting to see so many easily verifiable factual inaccuracies that I believe their respective research staffs should be demoted!
Alan Combs (Liberal) was pitted against Monica Crowley (Conservative) in an old fashion redo of "Point-Counter Point" segment called "Barak and a hard place!"

I think that Elon Musk should return to the "No Spin Zone" to set the record straight and he should do so ASAP.
Its one thing not to respond to petty Internet gutter snipes but another to address concerns made on a show with such wide reaching influence on potential Tesla Model 'S' future customers.
Here is a brief chronologically list of some of the fallacies that I caught:

1. Costs of different Model 'S' trim levels vs. costs of future models
2. Volt is an EV & only 3 sold (tongue and cheek)
3. Driving an EV is driving a 'toaster'
4. Build the EV infrastructure BEFORE you build the EVs - like building gas stations before ICE cars? Huh?
5. Going EV is essentially just swapping a gas bill for an electric bill
6. The government is essentially GIVING Tesla money like a bail-out
7. If Tesla was such a great idea they should get venture capital - been there, done that!
8. If Tesla was such a great idea they should do an IPO - been there, done that!

What did you catch and what do you think about Musk going on The Factor?

 

[NigelM]

A good friend of ours (coincidentally is also a Gynecologist!) saw the show and his wife called us the next day to find out more about the Model S because the Doc wants to put down a deposit! (The old maxim that "All publicity is good publicity"?)

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, stuff like that is frustrating because it's pure knee-jerkisms. No research whatsoever. The pundits just go off on a rant, making assumption after assumption with no basis in reality.

The best response IMO is for Tesla to make the best car ever made and knock these idiots on their respective posteriors. The main stream isn't going to know what hit them!

 

[vfx]

While I agree with you Ian that Elon should go on Fox and even O'Reilly's show (thank you for posting this) and that he should address all the points you made about venture cap, Toyota, IPO and add in that Elon's OWN money is invested, I think also think this was a softball piece.

O'Rielly was only slightly outraged, He let Colmes talk most the time and even gave him the last word. Bill also put out all sorts of questions he probably already knew the answers to about Toyota, and the IPO. Alan did not know a lot a Tesla specifics to answer correctly back and the girl was just there for faux-outrage eyecandy.

Lastly, with Bill looking to get Solar (!) and endorsing getting off OPEC (like you) and even promoting EVs as a winner it almost seemed like the piece is a backhanded compliment to Elon and company. If only Alan would have made the point that when Bill buys his American Model S he could drive from his new solar power.

The Plug in Movement should sit down with Alan to skool him on EVs as well.

Hard to argue that the Model S looked sweet (Even with the dark shadow vignette added) while the girl was talking about the US saying, "what the cars should look like".

 

[jcstp]

i thought showhosts involving politics had to be inpartial! Else it's just a publicity ad and nothing else!
Has this showhost politic ambitions?

 

[ckessel]

Inaccuracies with a political agenda? O'Reilly is on FOX, enough said.

 

[vfx]

i thought showhosts involving politics had to be inpartial! Else it's just a publicity ad and nothing else!
Has this showhost politic ambitions?

The entire Fox Network in the US has a political agenda. Only one or two of the hosts (newsreaders) are somewhat impartial. The rest get daily "talking points" about what topics the network is currently supporting or outraged with and then talk incessantly about those points of the course of the day or week.

 

[Norbert]

They used the claim that Tesla "recently" received a loan to make it sound like a newsworthy story following up on Solyndra, so I found it funny that Alan then said the loan was given by the recent administration. Otherwise I think for FOX this was relatively good and they showed nice Model S and Roadster video sequences, embedded in the usual FUD/nonsense playing to what their audience "expects", of course.

 

[VolkerP]

Couldn't watch it to the end... such ideological discussion is appropriate for religion but not for tech/economy.

 

[ibretired]

Faux news

I wouldn't even suggest to the advertisers on that station that I might even CONSIDER watching their channel. I vote with my remote too.

FAUX NEWS - simple solutions for simple minds struggling to survive in a complex society

 

[rolosrevenge]

Most news networks are biased in one way or the other sadly.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Most news networks are biased in one way or the other sadly.

Which isn't a problem if (a) the stations admit it and (b) the public cares enough to gather news from several, differently biased sources. The French press makes no pretension at being unbiased, but any serious Frenchman will read at least two and usually three or four papers. That's why cafes are so popular... In the Internet age, this cross-reading exercise is made even simpler. Sadly, few Americans bother--watch one TV channel, or listen to one radio station, and most are done. This bad habit is a direct offspring from the now-outdated notion that the press is unbiased, and therefore the only real difference among the different sources was the particular character of the anchor or the level of vocabulary in the writing. Ah, well ... sorry to go OT.

 

[Todd Burch]

Sorry, but Bill's a moron.

He obviously doesn't realize that our gas prices are as low as they are because of...government subsidies...

 

[Thumper]

Fox doesn't just misinform, it malinforms!

 

[zack]

You couldn't get me to watch that clip if you forced my eyes open a la Clockwork Orange and bolted my head into a brain surgery clamp.

Bill O'Reilly's only function in life is to lie for lots and lots of money.

 

[zack]

Sorry, but Bill's a moron.

He obviously doesn't realize that our gas prices are as low as they are because of...government subsidies...

Gas prices are twice as high as they seem. We pay a $4/gal penalty in the form of income tax to cover the last decade of wars for oil.

 

[dmckinstry]

Gas prices are twice as high as they seem. We pay a $4/gal penalty in the form of income tax to cover the last decade of wars for oil.

Not to mention "entitlements" for big oil. Sorry, I just had to throw in the "entitlements" as that's what many people keep complaining about wrt social security and medicare, etc.

 

[Norbert]

Someone explain to them that the "free market" as implemented is incapable of quantum leaps to technologies which require large upfront investments to be profitable. Unless it is exactly what an already large company happens to want for its own future. Market forces don't work at that scale. And even less when there are large external costs not becoming part of the market price. Oh, wait, they already understand it since they do want subsidies for oil companies and do want the government to carry external costs for coal and NG, and smog.

 

[rolosrevenge]

Which isn't a problem if (a) the stations admit it and (b) the public cares enough to gather news from several, differently biased sources. The French press makes no pretension at being unbiased, but any serious Frenchman will read at least two and usually three or four papers. That's why cafes are so popular... In the Internet age, this cross-reading exercise is made even simpler. Sadly, few Americans bother--watch one TV channel, or listen to one radio station, and most are done. This bad habit is a direct offspring from the now-outdated notion that the press is unbiased, and therefore the only real difference among the different sources was the particular character of the anchor or the level of vocabulary in the writing. Ah, well ... sorry to go OT.

Which is why I always skim Google news, since it gives the same story from three or four different sources. I usually get at least two foreign news sources about anything that is really important. I learned that Fox was stupid an intriguing way, they had a story about some pygmy rabbits that went extinct. The last remaining few had been released in the wild but were all killed off by predators. The headline said they were eaten by wolves. When I clicked on the link, the press dispatch was from my home town. There are NO wolves there nor anywhere near there. I've taken anything reported with a grain of salt ever since.

 

[DrTaras]

I had a sneaking suspicion that the haters would degrade this into a war on Fox News. Wish it hadn't but some people can't help themselves and don't realize that as stupid as Monica sounded when she said that EVs are essentially toaster ovens on wheels, that is how you sound when you call Fox News, "Faux News." I would say the same in defending MSNBC. There will be opinion people and there will be news people and you will agree with some and not others, and blah blah blah just agree to disagree. This is not about Fox News nor about your love or hate for the channel. It is about the power of 6 million pairs of eyeballs watching the O'Reilly Factor where in this particular segment there are tons of inaccuracies.
:cursing:
Most of the people writing and reading here are on board with EVs. You're preaching to the choir if you're trying to convince us of the benefits of EV-dom!

Think of how much money and effort Tesla put into trying to set the record straight with "Top Gear." Though they ultimately lost in court, did they win the battle for hearts and minds?
NigelM put it best and is at the crux of the question with his statement, "All publicity is good publicity."
In this case is it better to let sleeping dogs lie OR should Elon be encouraged to make an appearance to set the record straight?