The Business and Automotive Media Are Dishonestly Propping Up the Electric Vehicle Market
A majority of consumers are simply not willing to trade in their gas-powered vehicle for an EV, no matter how much media lipstick is applied to the EV pig.
Image: Alabama Living. Don’t worry…this will only take a half an hour, maybe longer. Why don’t you go for a walk or something?
It’s not amazing that the EV market has grown by almost 50 percent over the course of a year. What’s amazing is that the EV market hasn’t grown more than 50 percent given the sheer amount of advertising, subsidies, rebates, giveaways, new models, below-cost pricing, and government prohibition on competing products. By those measures, the market should have more than doubled.
You can’t blame the business and automotive media – they are doing their best to prop up the EV market, albeit dishonestly.
How much longer can the media mislead the public about the ridiculous expense, limited usage, time-consuming refueling, and environmental damage resulting from the “transition” from gas-powered to battery-powered cars?
How many times will the media promote the idea that EVs will “soon” become viable and technologically feasible utilizing breakthrough battery and charging technologies that are very likely decades away from being deployed at scale?
How often does realistic skepticism of the limited utility of EVs in real-world usage get gaslighted by media figures who insist that range anxiety is imaginary and “it’s only a matter of time” before EVs become "inevitable” and “affordable” for mainstream adoption?
How many other products on the market receive this nearly one-sided coverage, which ignores functional limitations, touting dubious claims of “environmental benefits,” and glosses over the much higher total cost of EV ownership than the gas-powered cars they are supposed to replace?
It’s become clear that a majority of business and automotive journalists skew sharply in favor of the EV “transition” and ignore many of the core concerns of people operating EVs under actual driving conditions. To the journalists, it’s all about the coolness of driving a vehicle that does not require gasoline, that charges overnight in your garage, that has insane acceleration, that has ever-increasing range, that permits you to drive solo in the HOV lane, and qualifies you for massive financial incentives to own one. Why, you’d be a fool not to jump on board!
Innovative design…Really?
The media began its EV promotional tour by churning out puff-pieces portraying EVs as more “innovative” than their gas-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) equivalents.
How innovative? An EV, heavily subsidized and priced far below manufacturing cost, still has a higher total cost of ownership than its ICE equivalent. Insisting that EVs are less expensive to own and operate than ICE vehicles is grossly dishonest, ignoring the higher upfront expenses, higher depreciation, higher insurance, and higher repair costs. And that’s assuming the massive subsidies and tax breaks are not reduced or eliminated during an EVs operating life.
How innovative? A fully charged EV sitting idle in a driveway unconnected to a power source will lose up to twenty miles of range per day due to the battery maintenance system, which is enabled at all times, slowly but constantly draining the battery. A two-week vacation away from the unplugged EV results in an inoperable EV when you return home. Nobody would tolerate that from a gas-powered vehicle.
How innovative? A minor traffic collision while driving an EV does not result in a mere Bondo and paint repair job. While an ICE vehicle’s gasoline tank is situated near the rear center of the vehicle, an EV battery pack takes up the entire chassis floorpan, putting caustic battery materials across a majority of the EV’s footprint and making a minor collision from any angle a hideously costly event if the battery is even slightly damaged. In these cases, the EV would likely be totaled, thus explaining the EV’s higher costs of insurance.
Image: Volkswagen. My, that’s a lot of battery to protect!
But, but, but…The Future!
Journalists already know all of this. So instead of pushing the same fictions from the past decade that are not believed any longer by most consumers, the automotive media is now laying out a technological future that is “just around the corner.” Solid-state batteries! Wireless charging! 700 miles of range! And, of course, charging stations everywhere and they will all be in operation! Before you know it, all of our lofty EV promises will come true!
Why does the media refuse to report on how a trillion dollars (or so) is being burned on outdated EV battery technologies however they promote technologies that don’t exist at scale today? The message here is “buy the inferior battery and charging technology today while we hold out for a breakthrough that might take place in a couple of decades.” The public can see right through this, adding to in the current downturn in EV demand.
This is all a distraction from the abundance of news surfacing on how taxpayers have been swindled, paying down the true costs of EV ownership through massive subsidies and watching their tax dollars buy up charging stations and EV battery manufacturing plants. Energy costs have nearly doubled in the past two years in order to pay for this, which is tantamount to issuing a regressive tax on everyone using energy to pay off those wealthy enough to buy and drive an EV.
Source: Texas Public Policy Foundation, showing how EV costs are subsidized through various means by charging the 93 percent of people who are not buying EVs.
All the good people drive EVs, doncha know?
Today’s EVs incorporate yesterday’s technologies while the media ties itself in knots to convince you that you’re on the morally superior cutting edge of transportation by buying one. So rush right out and get an EV before dealer inventory levels rise to the point where they will need to bury them in landfills to make room for the new models.
Individually, acquiring an EV might make sense for your transportation and mobility needs. That is a choice you should be making on your own, using a cost-benefit calculation that is agreeable to you and not based solely on the advice of a biased journalist following instructions from an editor trying to preserve auto industry advertising dollars.
The EV fanboy behavior of much of the business and automotive media isn’t just embarrassing – it is doing an outright disservice to consumers looking for objective analysis of the pros and cons of EV ownership and operation. The coverage of the EV market from previously reliable sources is looking more like a cheerleading squad rooting on a sports team being shut out in a game’s final seconds than a veritable review of the challenges of real world EV ownership and operation.
Because of automaker shareholders demand for transparency, there is news finally surfacing on the realities of the EV experience, from the massive financial losses on each EV sold to the challenges of charging EVs on the road to the actual range experienced in cold climates to whether an EV can be relied upon to haul a camper or a boat. These are all facts that the media has tried to spin into… something else.
No amount of deceptive media coverage will change the realities surrounding EV ownership. EVs are not a product intended for the average driver with moderate income needing affordable, reliable transportation. The EV is a niche, luxury product for wealthy people who already own gas-powered vehicles for road trips, hauling, and cold weather operation that their EV cannot reliably deliver.
The results of decades of EV market availability are in: This is a product that 93 percent of the population has still not purchased and likely never will. A vast majority of consumers are simply not willing to trade in their gas-powered vehicle for an EV, no matter how much media lipstick is applied to the EV pig.