Tag Archives: Los Angeles Times

Top Auto Story of 2010: State-Run Media Ignored GM Recall Issues at Toyota’s Expense

Posted on by
3

I disagree with the staff at Automotive News and their selection of the Toyota recall story as the top automobile-related news story of 2010.  The story that deserves at least as much attention has to do with how members of the state-run media ignored recall issues at GM (a.k.a., “Government Motors”) at Toyota’s expense.

I covered the Toyota recall story thoroughly in three early-February posts:

  • In my first post Feb. 5, I examined the number of campaign contributions made by Toyota executives to Barack Obama since Jan. 1, 2007, and found that only two of 151 executives listed on the Toyota web site gave a combined total of $2,500 to Obama for America;
  • In my second post Feb. 5, I speculated about the possible reasons why the Obama Administration would want to bully Toyota; and, finally,
  • In a Feb. 8 post, I wondered why the federal government had not yet issued a recall for the Chevrolet Cobalt despite the fact that, according to a Feb. 2 Los Angeles Times report, 905,000 2005-’09 copies of the “Bow-Tie” vehicle, including the Cobalt SS, were the subject of a new investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration due to complaints of electric power steering failure.

It was in the latter post that I revealed the disturbing results of some simple math calculations:

During the days that followed, Edmund’s Inside Line, The New York Times Wheels blog and two other publications reported the same basic story, informing readers that the investigation was launched after more than 1,100 consumer complaints were received.

According to a Chicago Tribune report Jan. 26, the Toyota recall was based upon some 2,000 complaints related to 2.3 million vehicles sold.

In doing the math related to these recalls, I found the following:

• Only 1 in 1,000 (.001) consumers complained about the Chevrolet product; and

• Fewer than 1 in 1,000 (.00009) consumers complained about the Toyota product.

In short, the Chevrolet product has received more complaints per car sold than the Toyota products!  So why hasn’t the federal government issued a recall on the Cobalt? Probably because Chevrolet is owned by General Motors (a.k.a. “Government Motors”), a taxpayer-owned company that stands to benefit greatly from having its foreign-owned competitors struggle with the public relations nightmares related to product recalls.

Did Toyota’s recall problems warrant selection as the “Top News” story of 2010?  Perhaps.  But the state-run media/government treatment of Toyota certainly deserves at least as much attention.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you enjoy this blog and want to help keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right.  Thanks in advance for your support!

UPDATE 1/3/11 at 9:51 a.m. Central: Cross-posted at BigJournalism.com.

UPDATE 1/5/11 at 9:16 a.m. Central: According to a GM news release, General Motors 2010 calendar year sales were up 21 percent while Toyota reported 2010 sales were flat.

Offshore Drilling Moratorium No Longer Necessary

Posted on by
Reply

Another reason why we don’t need a moratorium on offshore drilling:  nobody else is going to be taking risks during the next six months like BP did three months prior to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that left 11 dead and created one of the worst ecological disasters in history.

The Los Angeles Times, a source I rarely cite, reported today on the testimony of Ronald Sepulvado during a Coast Guard-Interior Department hearing Tuesday in New Orleans.  In the article by Julie Cart and Rong-Gong Lin II, the Times reported the well manager as saying BP officials knew about a serious problem on a crucial well safety device at least three months before the catastrophe.

Further, the newspaper reported that investigators said BP officials did not disclose the matter to the appropriate federal agency and failed to suspend drilling operations until the problem was resolved, as required by law.

In light of Sepulvado’s testimony and the words of the investigators, one has to wonder why it is that this nation’s top Democrats — including President Barack Obama — seem dead-set on punishing the entire offshore drilling industry.

After all, wasn’t it Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who announced Sept. 23, 2008, that the U.S. House of Representatives would allow a quarter-century-old offshore drilling ban to expire, prompting American Petroleum Institute officials to express cautious optimism the next day?

On Oct. 1, 2009, one year after the congressional embargo on offshore energy exploration and production had expired, observant Americans realized nothing good had transpired as a result of the Speaker Pelosi’s actions. Instead, more roadblocks to drilling had been erected and the federal government had lost money, according to one report.  Plus, the federal government went from generating more than $10 billion in bonus bids from energy leasing in 2008 to collecting only $875 million — or 8.6% of the previous year’s total — in 2009.

Six months later, President Obama played a bad April Fool’s Day joke on the American people.  Apparently wanting Americans to think he had “seen the light,” he announced that he had approved offshore drilling along much of the East Coast.

Within days, however, we learned from Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) that President Obama’s plan was full of rhetoric but short on drilling and will actually lock up significantly more of the Outer Continental Shelf than it makes available for energy production.

Now, with the Deepwater Horizon disaster approaching the 100-day mark, most Americans have had an opportunity to see how this president responds to a crisis — by imposing one moratorium on offshore drilling, having it rejected by a federal judge and then trying to impose another.

If, after reading this, you still think a moratorium on offshore drilling is justified, I beg you to think again.  Think about who’s behind the idea.  Think about the significant harm it will do to the economy.  Most importantly, consider who’s behind the idea.

Oh, one more thing:  Vote wisely.

I Don’t Listen to Hollywood: Tom Hanks Edition

Posted on by
2

So what if he starred in Steven Spielberg’s 1998 blockbuster, “Saving Private Ryan.” It’s time to evict Tom Hanks from the Ranger Hall of Fame.

An excerpt from a recent Los Angeles Times article, ‘The Pacific’s’ Tom Hanks: The right wing’s new boogeyman, makes the case clearly about the actor who, while busily pimping “The Pacific,” his latest effort for HBO, threw verbal mud in the face of everyone who fought for our country in the Pacific Theater during World War II:

“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”

If you agree that Hanks, a 2006 inductee, should be ousted from the Ranger Hall of Fame, let members of the hall’s selection board know how you feel by writing to them at the following address:

Attn:  Ranger Hall of Fame Selection Board Members
U.S. Army Ranger Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 52126
Fort Benning, GA 31995-2126

In addition, you can e-mail the elected officers of the USARA who oversee the Hall of Fame.  Their e-mail addresses can be found here.

Feds Fail to Issue Recall for Chevy Cobalt Despite More Complaints Per Vehicle Than Toyota

Posted on by
5

If someone died as a result of faulty mechanics in a Toyota or Lexus vehicle, then a recall was indeed necessary.  But shouldn’t the playing field be level for all manufacturers, regardless of whether or not someone died?

I ask this question three days after publishing a pair of posts in which I expressed skepticism about the reasons behind the federal government issuing recalls on products made by the Japanese auto giant:

  • In Is Toyota Paying Price for Not Supporting Obama?, I examined the number of campaign contributions made by Toyota executives to Barack Obama since Jan. 1, 2007, and found that only two of 151 executives listed on the Toyota web site gave a combined total of $2,500 to Obama for America.

Today, however, I discovered something more.

On Feb. 2, the Los Angeles Times reported that an estimated 905,000 2005-’09 Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles, including the Cobalt SS, are the subject of a new investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration due to complaints of electric power steering failure. Such an action is sometimes the precursor to a recall.  During the days that followed, Edmund’s Inside Line, The New York Times Wheels blog and two other publications reported the same basic story, informing readers that the investigation was launched after more than 1,100 consumer complaints were received.

According to a Chicago Tribune report Jan. 26, the Toyota recall was based upon some 2,000 complaints related to 2.3 million vehicles sold.

In doing the math related to these recalls, I found the following:

  • Only 1 in 1,000 (.001) consumers complained about the Chevrolet product; and
  • Fewer than 1 in 1,000 (.00009) consumers complained about the Toyota product.

In short, the Chevrolet product has received more complaints per car sold than the Toyota products!  So why hasn’t the federal government issued a recall on the Cobalt? Probably because Chevrolet is owned by General Motors (a.k.a. “Government Motors”), a taxpayer-owned company that stands to benefit greatly from having its foreign-owned competitors struggle with the public relations nightmares related to product recalls.

Developing…

Do We Really Need Obama’s Council of Governors?

Posted on by
Reply

Only two weeks after he signed an executive order tasking the Postal Service with distributing countermeasures in case of bioweapon attack, it appears President Barack Obama is at it again.  On Monday, he signed another executive order to establish something he calls a “Council of Governors.”

Among the national news media, only the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on it, and they did it without comment, simply publishing the text of the order.  Therefore, I’m inviting you to help me answer the question, “Do we really need Obama’s Council of Governors?”

Please click here or on the image at the top of this post to read the document, then share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Hat tip: Magiman007

The Michael Behenna Story: Part Nine

Posted on by
Reply

1st Lt. Michael Behenna (left) walks with a fellow soldier in Iraq.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On July 31, 2008, Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna was charged with the premeditated murder of Ali Mansur, a known Al-Qaeda agent operating near Albu Toma, an area north of Baghdad.  Seven months later, the leader of the 18-member Delta Company, 5th platoon of the Army 101st Airborne Infantry Division was convicted of unpremeditated murder and sentenced to 25 years confinement at Fort Leavenworth. Below is the ninth and final installment of a multi-part investigative series detailing the spurious case against Lieutenant Behenna, now 26, adapted from “The Michael Behenna Story (pdf),” (26 pgs., PDF) by new BMW contributor Carrie Fatigante. It picks up from “The Michael Behenna Story: Part Eight.”

By Carrie Fatigante

Unable to ignore any longer their own expert witness, renowned forensic scientist Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell, Army prosecutors turned over the previously hidden evidence to 1st Lt. Michael Behenna’s defense team.

The judge then ordered both sides to file briefs relating to a possible mistrial based on a Brady violation, stemming from a 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland that ruled suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant violates due process and the accused’s right to a fair and impartial trial.

But on March 20, 2009, ruling in concert with the prosecution, Judge Col. Theodore Dixon denied Behenna’s request for a mistrial and upheld Michael’s conviction of unpremeditated murder, claiming MacDonell’s affidavit was not “credible.”

As a result, Michael was sentenced to 25 years — later reduced to 20 — in prison at the Ft. Leavenworth penitentiary.  A request for a new trial has been denied, and the case is currently under appeal and review for clemency.

Michael's Platoon

When I randomly (and unscientifically) polled persons about their opinions of this case, most were outraged at what they called “liberal” policies implemented to gain favor with Iraqi people for the sake of humanity, regardless of the fact that these terrorists abide by no code of honor, save that of killing themselves in the process of killing as many westerners as possible.

Civilian principles historically do not apply in war, but increasingly the U.S. government insists that our servicemen make combat decisions based on civilian legal issues, despite the fact that they are fighting an enemy that refuses to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

Earlier this year, the Obama Administration ordered the U.S. civilian version of Miranda rights to be read to all war detainees, fatally constricting the ability of soldiers to gain needed intelligence to save further lives.

Throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, soldiers have been faced with imminent life-threatening situations and have had to make combat decisions based on whether they could later be sent to prison.

Today, Michael is one of many soldiers convicted of war crimes for actions they believed were protecting their troops and the interests of the United States.

The Behenna Family

The Behenna Family: Scott, Brett, Vicki, Michael and Curtis

Michael’s case has consumed the lives of his parents, Scott and Vicki.  They travel each weekend from Oklahoma to Kansas to visit their son and, after work each weeknight they answer hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls from supporters and respond to news media requests.

Countless blogs and internet radio shows have covered Michael’s case and local Oklahoma media outlets have featured Michael in print and video.  The only mainstream media source to cover the prosecution’s Brady violation is the Los Angeles Times.  Still, Vicki says the outpouring of public support helps strengthen their resolve to earn Michael a fair trial.  And that’s all they are asking for — a new trial.

They could demand a dismissal of charges outright, but the Behennas are only asking for an open and fair trial for Michael where all evidence is presented.

Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell

Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonell

Dr. MacDonell has not forgotten Michael’s case either.  On Oct. 3, the Corning (N.Y.) Star-Gazette reported in an article (no longer online) that, at a recent luncheon sponsored by the Auxiliary of Corning Hospital in New York, the doctor highlighted six of his most important cases.  Michael’s was one of them.  Other articles, like this one, confirm the doctor’s continued interest in the case.

I asked Vicki how Michael is treated by guards and fellow prisoners at Fort Leavenworth.

“They support him 100 percent,” she explained.  “In fact, some of the guards that have been given orders for deployment have come to Michael asking him for advice.”

In a truly telling moment just after his conviction, Michael sat in a chair with his head in his hands as he waited to be escorted to prison.  Vicki recalls that the guard assigned to cover Michael knelt before him, looked him in the eyes and said, “You are an honorable man.  You will always be a soldier.” The guard then stood and saluted him.

As my conversation with the Behenna family came to a close, I asked Scott, “If there is one thing you wish to tell people about Michael, what would it be?”  His answer befits only the finest of U.S. soldiers.

“I want them to know Michael served his country with honor and courage,” he said.  “There has been no evidence presented to taint that courage.  Everything he did was oriented to protect his soldiers, the people of Iraq, and his country.”

* * *

1st Lt. Michael Behenna

1st Lt. Michael Behenna

To read other BMW posts about Lieutenant Behenna’s case, click here.

To learn more about the case and the legal defense fund set up to help defray costs associated with Lt. Behenna’s defense, visit DefendMichael.wordpress.com.

Flashback to a Post on Sex and Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

EDITOR’S NOTE: On April 27, 2007, I published a post that loosely linked Mike Penner, a Los Angeles Times sportswriter who had announced he would undergo a sex-change operation, and the multi-faceted controversy surrounding global warming.  Today, I republish that post for two reasons:  (1) I learned that Penner died yesterday of an apparent suicide; and (2) I learned about e-mail evidence about the apparent manipulation of climate change data by researchers at the UK’s East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit that many believe will put the proverbial nail in the coffin of global warming alarmism.  Please know that, in republishing this piece, I do not intend any disrespect to the family and friends of Penner.

Gender-Bending Reporter Case Prompts Question

An article, Old Mike, new Christine, appeared in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, offering a first-person perspective on the bizarre, gender-bending “transition” of the newspaper’s long-time sports reporter Mike Penner into a “new” creature he plans to call “Christine Daniels”. Strange stuff, no doubt.

More curious to me, however, is the fact that he’ll likely keep his job as a sports reporter at the Times, become a minor celebrity-freak in the world of journalism and be ostracized by baseball. Makes me wonder whether a science reporter at a newspaper like the Times would be accepted in a similar manner after defying convention in such a politically-incorrect way.

For instance, what would happen to a journalist who declared himself a non-believer when it comes to the global warming theology of the Rev. Al Gore and his Warmin’ Church?

To answer that question, I composed the blog post below on behalf of just such a fictitious reporter:

SCIENCE REPORTER TAKES A STAND

I’m publishing this article as a post on my personal blog, since the newspaper where I worked for more than 23 years fired me upon learning I don’t buy the theory that human-caused global warming is soon to doom our planet.

Though many readers, colleagues and friends will be shocked to read those words, please know it didn’t take more than 30 seconds for me to drum up the courage to type them. After all, they’re backed up by actual scientific research to which I’ve been privy as a result of interviewing the experts who conducted the research.

I know I’m one of the few science reporters who refuses to transition from fact-based to consensus science. Why? Because, truth be told, scientists know far too little about the global climate, about what causes it to change and about how to measure changes if and/or when they occur.

I believe environmental extremism is a complicated and widely misunderstood medical condition. It is an unnatural occurrence resulting, in part, from over-exposure to cultural and societal factors, such as tabloid journalism, junk science and dumbed-down public school education.

An environmental extremist friend provided the best and simplest explanation I have heard: We are bombarded with propaganda about this, we fight it as long as we can, and in the end it wins. Except in my case.

I’m giving it as good a fight as I possibly can. I’ve never succumbed. But others have.

After growing tired of the public humiliation received for going against the consensus-science thinking of the masses, others abandoned their training and instincts and said, “What the heck!” before swallowing the junk-science findings of bestselling books and Academy Award-winning documentaries on the subject. Now, they carry the “water” for guys like Al Gore.

On occasion, I’ve pondered the possible repercussions from writing a story such as this one. In the end, however, I could not abandon some of my most important beliefs, ones I’d spent a lifetime reporting, to a world that has grown familiar and comfortable with hype, sensationalism and limited attention to facts. So I opted to come out of my conservative “closet”.

When I told my boss, he leaned back in his chair, looked through his office window to scan the newsroom and mused, “After I fire you, no one can say we don’t have consensus on this staff.” Then he fired me.

All I can say at this point is that I am now happier, more focused and more energized than ever, looking forward to my next job at the National Enquirer, the only publisher that will hire someone like me who’s willing to buck convention.

* * *

EPILOGUE: For the most part, the predictions I made in the post above proved accurate. Penner kept his job at the LA Times and received a lot of attention as a result of his very-public sex change.  As to whether or not he was ostracized by baseball, I do not know for sure.