Stever Harris goes after the Times -- Again!

[nadepalma]

I know someone posted the Friedman retort to Steve Harris' FastLane piece a few days ago, so now it seems as though Steve has had to retort once again -- what do you guys think? Does someon have the GMI link to Friedman's original "retort-to-the-retort"?

Source: http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives...mes_again.html

The Times — Again
By Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications

Editor’s note: Yesterday, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times devoted 1,279 words (subscription required), a full quarter of the Times’ Op-Ed page, to respond directly to this blog’s June 1 post by Steve Harris, which addressed Friedman’s earlier criticism of GM. That the Times would respond in that way to any blog posting is significant. Here’s Steve’s response to Mr. Friedman’s defense.

Although we have disputed the factual accuracy and reasoning of Thomas Friedman's recent columns on GM, this debate has given us the opportunity to better inform the world of what GM is all about.

First, it’s worth noting that we, and Mr. Friedman, are really not in disagreement on the fundamental issue here: That the United States needs to reduce its fuel consumption and dependence on oil. Enhancing energy security is an appropriate national goal.

Unfortunately, many of his assumptions and the way he proposes to meet that goal are incorrect. He is correct, however, that consumers will increasingly make different vehicle choices, embrace new technologies and adjust the amount of fuel they use as its cost rises.

In other words, consumers are rational and markets do work.

We find it particularly curious that Mr. Friedman dismisses GM’s leadership in producing E85 vehicles as the result of a “shameful federal loophole.” In fact, the federal legislation that encouraged automakers to produce these vehicles is an example of a public policy incentive that actually did what it was supposed to do. It essentially broke the “chicken-and-egg” syndrome inherent to any introduction of an alternative fuel: Which comes first, the vehicles or the fuel?

There are more than 5 million E85-capable cars and trucks on the road today; more than 2 million of those are GM vehicles. The issue now is getting more E85 fuel produced and distributed, and that’s happening. Farmers are forming co-ops to build more ethanol plants, investors are lining up to help out, and we are working with distributors and the government to encourage wider distribution. It’s the market, driven by higher gasoline prices, that’s suddenly helping to build a consensus and momentum for E85.

Granted, E85 is not the complete solution. But it’s an important start — something we can do right now to reduce our oil consumption.

Look no further than Brazil for proof. Just three years ago, Brazil renewed its commitment to ethanol to end its “addiction” to foreign oil. Automakers, including GM, responded with new “flex-fuel” vehicles that run either on ethanol or gasoline. And how much foreign oil does Brazil import today?

Virtually none.

We believe that fuel cell-powered vehicles ultimately will prove to be the solution to ending our oil dependence, and we’re investing billions and making progress in driving the cost of this technology down to make it practical. In the meantime, E85 offers an immediate way to begin our transition away from oil.

GM’s strategy is to invest in many technologies with potential, including hybrid powertrains. In fact, we have put 449 GM hybrid public transit buses on the streets of 38 cities in the United States and Canada over the past few years. While they may get little attention in the media, they’re saving thousands of gallons of fuel every week.

We will introduce the Saturn VUE Green Line hybrid this summer, which will offer the best highway fuel economy of any SUV (EPA estimated 32 mpg) at a price significantly below its hybrid competitors. The Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs with our high-tech, two-mode hybrid system will hit showrooms next year. BMW and DaimlerChrysler have joined GM to produce this hybrid powertrain for their large cars and trucks, and thereby lower the overall cost.

Mr. Friedman questioned how we can compete in a world of $3.99-per-gallon gasoline prices. The fact is, we can and we do here and around the world.

So far this year, GM has sold more than 491,000 cars that get 30 mpg or better EPA-estimated highway mileage in the United States. By comparison, we’ve sold just under 7,000 Hummer H2s and 138 H1s — an aging model that we will stop producing this month.

Put another way, total Hummer sales represented less than half of 1 percent of total vehicle sales in the United States through May, or just 1.6 percent of GM’s total sales. My point is to put Hummer sales into perspective. It’s one of our lower-volume brands, but has a loyal following of off-road enthusiasts.

Interestingly, Hummer sales are up 156 percent this year through May — despite higher fuel prices. That’s because last year we introduced a more fuel-efficient midsize model, the H3, which can get an EPA-estimated 20 mpg on the highway. It has been a significant hit.

Mr. Friedman also was dismissive about the fact that our full-size SUVs have the highest EPA fuel-economy numbers. He cites one magazine that rates Toyota and Honda’s SUVs better overall on other criteria.

Of course, Honda doesn’t make a full-size SUV (Mr. Friedman admits, “I’m not a car expert.”) And actual consumers overwhelmingly rate GM’s full-size SUVs better than Toyota’s. This year through May, GM’s full-size SUVs are commanding 68.3 percent of the segment; Toyota’s Sequoia and Land Cruiser combined account for only 7.7 percent.

Another point that Mr. Friedman raised demands clarification. He implied I was misleading our readers by failing to mention rebates being offered on 2006 Chevy Suburbans and Tahoes. He failed to mention that we stopped building the ’06 models last year before the redesigned ‘07s went on sale, and that relatively few of them are left to sell. It’s common when new models are introduced for automakers to offer discounts to move the older models off the lot — customers aren’t going to pay full sticker for the old model when the all-new model can be had for about the same price.

Again, our 2007 full-size SUVs have been selling very well, without any national rebates.

As I said in my previous post, GM, like Toyota, is a full-line automaker. We offer something for everyone. Ultimately, consumers decide what they will buy based on their own calculation of their needs, desires and budgets.

We’ve been improving the internal-combustion engine for close to 100 years, and we have a tremendous record of innovation. We continue to invest in future technology that promises to get the car out of the debates on oil dependence and the environment.

I again invite Mr. Friedman to come to Detroit and learn more about our research, to speak with our engineers and get a firsthand look at what we’re doing to reach the goal that we both agree is desirable.

[T-Type]

Wow great reply. No name calling - just let the facts speak for themselves.

I was concerned wheather another reply would have been a good idea, but this one was very well done.

[paul8488]

Thanks cincygoblue for posting this too. Since nadepalma's already had a response yours was deleted, but thanks for getting it up so quickly! Interesting read. This could go back and forth a bit, but Friedman sounds like a raving lunatic in his article, while Harris is cool as a cucumber.

[nascarnate326]

"So far this year, GM has sold more than 491,000 cars that get 30 mpg or better EPA-estimated highway mileage in the United States. By comparison, we’ve sold just under 7,000 Hummer H2s and 138 H1s — an aging model that we will stop producing this month."

My fav part.

[ronus20]

This is good reading material. I love reading these rebuttals back and forth from Mr. Friedman and GM.

[cincygoblue]

Originally Posted by paul8488

Thanks cincygoblue for posting this too. Since nadepalma's already had a response yours was deleted, but thanks for getting it up so quickly! Interesting read. This could go back and forth a bit, but Friedman sounds like a raving lunatic in his article, while Harris is cool as a cucumber.

No Prob. I didn't see his when I posted mine, but if people saw his first, I'm glad the mods kept everything together. Thanks.

[Aromanances]

Good responce. This and Friedman's own rantings put into perspective just what a uniformed and out of touch fool he is.

[cincygoblue]

I think this is nothing but a GOOD thing for GM. Everytime the Idiot makes a comment, GM can present facts and sell people on their position. It's almost a situation where any publicity is good publicity. Plus, more and more people who care about cars (enthusiasts, potential customers, autowriters, etc.) are probably bookmarking the Fastlane Blog to see what GM is saying, and therefore, even weeks and months down the road, people may be back at the site where they can get info straight from the source about anything GM wants to publicize (Fuel Cells, Hybrids, Quality, Concepts, etc.)

This is GREAT!!!
.

[A Bum In A Bus]

Friedman has a problem, he believes his own spewing. I used to occasionally read his writing but no more. I wonder how heavily invested he is in Toyota. I'm sure that jerk has a bundle......The Times would be smart to lose this fella before he cost them readers. They have a pile of dud columnist such as Friedman and the infamous, WMD "I love war" lady Judith Miller, they sure know how to pick winners.............not.
</IMG>

[2000GTPBROTHER]

The Times would not let GM submit a 490 word reply to the original 800 word piece that appeared in their paper, trying to limit them to 200 of the "right" words. Finally with no reply appearing.

Mr. Friedman, though can come back with a 1,279 reply in the paper to a GM blog entry.

[TaHoE]

Well done. Excellent reply. I would just love to see Friedman head up to detroit and get schooled. He is probably to scared to fly up there anyway.

[SigEpCutlass]

Like i said in my other post about his blog reply, WELL DONE! Steve put Friedman in his place by using facts and numbers! Maybe that's something Friedman should have considered doing.

[69Firebird400]

Everytime that blowhard Friedman writes another op-ed that attacks GM, he sounds more and more like a mentally ill homeless guy yelling at people who walk buy, but who everyone ignores. He took it personally that GM took exception to his biased, ridiculous garbage.

Good for GM and Steve Harris for a very mature, well thought out reply. The next step should be pulling advertising if Friedman keeps it up. This seems to be way worse than what the LA Times did a year or so ago. Plus the fact that GM is barely given any chance for a printed rebuttal, while Friedman is given 1,279 words, clearly shows the NYT's bias.

I'm not one to scream "bias" very often, but this really aggravates me. I hope Friedman has his toes run over by a Prius on his way to work someday soon.

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by paul8488

Thanks cincygoblue for posting this too. Since nadepalma's already had a response yours was deleted, but thanks for getting it up so quickly! Interesting read. This could go back and forth a bit, but Friedman sounds like a raving lunatic in his article, while Harris is cool as a cucumber.

Originally Posted by cincygoblue

No Prob. I didn't see his when I posted mine, but if people saw his first, I'm glad the mods kept everything together. Thanks.

Sorry cincygoblue!! I didn't realize that you posted it as well!! I always check the other forums first to see if someone posted what I'm about to post but I must have missed yours. Thumbs up to the mods for giving credit to cincygoblue as well -- its good to see you guys have all the bases covered! !

Happy Friday Fellas!

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by ronus20

This is good reading material. I love reading these rebuttals back and forth from Mr. Friedman and GM.

Me too, it's almost as good as watching TV!!

I have to say that Harris comes across as calm and collected -- good for him I say. Better to quietly pick apart your opponents arguement than rant and rave like Friedman has done -- makes our side look better.