3 ms·

I've seen quite a few negative articles about EVs recently, which has made me wonder about the pushing of a narrative. The fact that this article comes out in

I've seen quite a few negative articles about EVs recently, which has made me wonder about the pushing of a narrative. The fact that this article comes out in May 2024, reporting on data that is, at it's most recent, 7 years old, about a nascent technology only makes me more suspicious. What is the value of this article to the reader? It's not, by definition, "news". Maybe my judgement is just biased the other way.

entuno 2y ago
To be fair to the Guardian, the study has only just come out, and is (apparently) using the most recent data available. But yes, it's interesting that they're taking 7 year old data to present an anti-EV narrative without mentioning that rather important caveat.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  To be fair, it is mentioned. To be critical, it's mentioned in the 8th paragraph of a 13 paragraph article. Conversely, the very first paragraph is pure lede. The title and opening paragraph could be seen as discouraging the reading of the rest of the article. It's like the opposite of an online recipe - it's brutally efficient. Odd for The Guardian which, as far as I understand it, is (somewhat) left leaning and I'd normally slightly correct for bias towards environmentally conscious perspectives.
rickydroll 2y ago
I've noticed the same anti-EV bias in articles, especially from "eco-focus" news sources that publish articles that are mainly favorable to fossil fuel companies. I believe this pushback is happening because EVs are stripping revenue from significant parts of the automotive world, primarily dealer repair shops and the fuel industry.
hilbert42 2y ago
I can only guess why this study is being done now but the info is not new. There are reports from many decades ago about quiet trams hitting pedestrians for the same reason. If the stats are accurate then that will be useful info.

entuno 2y ago

To be fair to the Guardian, the study has only just come out, and is (apparently) using the most recent data available. But yes, it's interesting that they're taking 7 year old data to present an anti-EV narrative without mentioning that rather important caveat.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
To be fair, it is mentioned. To be critical, it's mentioned in the 8th paragraph of a 13 paragraph article. Conversely, the very first paragraph is pure lede. The title and opening paragraph could be seen as discouraging the reading of the rest of the article. It's like the opposite of an online recipe - it's brutally efficient. Odd for The Guardian which, as far as I understand it, is (somewhat) left leaning and I'd normally slightly correct for bias towards environmentally conscious perspectives.

rickydroll 2y ago

I've noticed the same anti-EV bias in articles, especially from "eco-focus" news sources that publish articles that are mainly favorable to fossil fuel companies. I believe this pushback is happening because EVs are stripping revenue from significant parts of the automotive world, primarily dealer repair shops and the fuel industry.

hilbert42 2y ago

I can only guess why this study is being done now but the info is not new. There are reports from many decades ago about quiet trams hitting pedestrians for the same reason. If the stats are accurate then that will be useful info.