5 ms·

Sorry, but electric cars are not infallible. There are some real issues involved with using them, and people are getting upset because a entertainment show abou

Sorry, but electric cars are not infallible. There are some real issues involved with using them, and people are getting upset because a entertainment show about cars is poking fun at those issues in an exaggerated way. All this sharpening of the pitchforks over ethics/editorial guidelines/facts is just a red herring to debase a TV show that isn't going to march in lockstep with a car manufacturer's marketing literature, or support the environmentalist's point of view that electric cars are utopia. Do note this article is in the environmental section of the guardian. Top Gear bashes all cars of all types. They can be downright offensive (there was a somewhat tasteless joke about mexican cars a while back), but when it comes to electric cars, for some reason there is this clamoring for facts/journalistic integrity, etc in the media. These people don't really care for the show, they just care how electric cars are being portrayed in the media.

raganwald 15y ago
I think everyone agrees that electric cars are associated with certain disadvantages with respect to the availability of recharging facilities. The issue raised in this post is not that Top Gear misrepresented how inconvenient running out of charge could be, but that by deliberately running out of charge, ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings, Top Gear misrepresented how easy it is to run out of charge during normal use. All they had to do was say, “The Nissan does a good job of warning you not to run low on charge, but we all know how often people in the real world ignore the out of petrol warning on their cars and run out of fuel. Let’s see what happens if we ignore the warnings and try to drive to Lincolnshire anyways.” Presto, they make their point without maliciously or inadvertantly making another and wrong point.
- goblgobl 15y ago
  That is precisely why people in this thread repeatedly emphasize its an entertainment show first, car show second. There is a story arc for the show and car reviews. Nissan may have a well designed system to limit blackouts, but in this case it didn't play well with the entertainment/comedic elements of the show. Honestly, do you think this is playing to the facts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZy87TmDcs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZy87TmDcs Do you think afterwards they should mention it wasn't real? They have a narrative, and entertainment/comedy takes priority over car reviews. It only seems to ruffle the feathers of electric car/environmental group - and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) and all to do with advancing their agenda.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    I do not consider “It’s an entertainment show” to be sufficent excuse for deliberately mileading people. If you find that satisfactory, that is your business.
  - hcles 15y ago
    > ... and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) Just, wow. How does one even reply to a comment so profoundly stupid?
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  "by deliberately running out of charge" Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe. "ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings" What warnings did they conceal? They were talking to each other over radios about how their cars said they were almost out of juice.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe. Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. Imagine, for example, that I wanted to demonstrate the catastrophic dangers of Scuba Diving. I go on a tour with a noted guiding company. I am trained in my equipment’s features. I am outfitted with a mechanical gas gauge and an air integrated dive computer. I deliberately breathe my tank down to less than full capacity before submerging, and then I deliberately exhaust air on the bottom to run it out. Instant emergency. This would be a fine way to discuss the dangers of being out of air at depth, but it would be ludicrous to stage the whole thing as if a diver would actually submerge on less than a full tank of air and would continue the dive even if his air integrated computer were to warn him that he could not complete the dive as planned. I’ve seen tons of videos showing this kind of thing, but none have suggested anything other than human error is the problem. If what they want to do is say that petrol is more convenient because you can get gas even if you’re a complete idiot, they can make that point easily and entertainingly without deception.
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. No, you're missing the point that it's a television show. As such, things must be done in a predictable, safe, and visually appealing manner. They can't have the crew sputtering to a stop on a blind crest or busy highway. The show you want would go like this: Clarkson: "Welcome to Top Gear. Tonight, our challenge is to drive electric cars from X to Y! hosts climb into cars May: "Oh, the on-board computer tells me I can't go that far." Clarkson: "And on that bombshell, thank you for watching!" That version communicates exactly the same point, but with zero entertainment. Your SCUBA example is ludicrous, and completely the opposite of what happened here. i.e. increasing danger.

raganwald 15y ago

I think everyone agrees that electric cars are associated with certain disadvantages with respect to the availability of recharging facilities. The issue raised in this post is not that Top Gear misrepresented how inconvenient running out of charge could be, but that by deliberately running out of charge, ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings, Top Gear misrepresented how easy it is to run out of charge during normal use. All they had to do was say, “The Nissan does a good job of warning you not to run low on charge, but we all know how often people in the real world ignore the out of petrol warning on their cars and run out of fuel. Let’s see what happens if we ignore the warnings and try to drive to Lincolnshire anyways.” Presto, they make their point without maliciously or inadvertantly making another and wrong point.

goblgobl 15y ago
That is precisely why people in this thread repeatedly emphasize its an entertainment show first, car show second. There is a story arc for the show and car reviews. Nissan may have a well designed system to limit blackouts, but in this case it didn't play well with the entertainment/comedic elements of the show. Honestly, do you think this is playing to the facts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZy87TmDcs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZy87TmDcs Do you think afterwards they should mention it wasn't real? They have a narrative, and entertainment/comedy takes priority over car reviews. It only seems to ruffle the feathers of electric car/environmental group - and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) and all to do with advancing their agenda.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I do not consider “It’s an entertainment show” to be sufficent excuse for deliberately mileading people. If you find that satisfactory, that is your business.
- hcles 15y ago
  > ... and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) Just, wow. How does one even reply to a comment so profoundly stupid?
georgieporgie 15y ago
"by deliberately running out of charge" Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe. "ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings" What warnings did they conceal? They were talking to each other over radios about how their cars said they were almost out of juice.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe. Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. Imagine, for example, that I wanted to demonstrate the catastrophic dangers of Scuba Diving. I go on a tour with a noted guiding company. I am trained in my equipment’s features. I am outfitted with a mechanical gas gauge and an air integrated dive computer. I deliberately breathe my tank down to less than full capacity before submerging, and then I deliberately exhaust air on the bottom to run it out. Instant emergency. This would be a fine way to discuss the dangers of being out of air at depth, but it would be ludicrous to stage the whole thing as if a diver would actually submerge on less than a full tank of air and would continue the dive even if his air integrated computer were to warn him that he could not complete the dive as planned. I’ve seen tons of videos showing this kind of thing, but none have suggested anything other than human error is the problem. If what they want to do is say that petrol is more convenient because you can get gas even if you’re a complete idiot, they can make that point easily and entertainingly without deception.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. No, you're missing the point that it's a television show. As such, things must be done in a predictable, safe, and visually appealing manner. They can't have the crew sputtering to a stop on a blind crest or busy highway. The show you want would go like this: Clarkson: "Welcome to Top Gear. Tonight, our challenge is to drive electric cars from X to Y! hosts climb into cars May: "Oh, the on-board computer tells me I can't go that far." Clarkson: "And on that bombshell, thank you for watching!" That version communicates exactly the same point, but with zero entertainment. Your SCUBA example is ludicrous, and completely the opposite of what happened here. i.e. increasing danger.