Did you guys try contacting the public editor, Byron Calame?

We learned a while back that the Times actually changed wording\words in an reader op-ed from a US serviceman. Now it appears that the Times actually changes the wording, and suggests changes to reader letters before 'allowing' them to be published.

Clearly NOTHING gets into print in the Times without going through the phalanx of Times editors first.

Do you guys always have to negtioate and allow editing when submitting rebuttals to the media?

I just go back to what I said before in a previous post.

"Lies, they have no power so question their authority arresting ruth,
A million lies cannot alter a single truth." -Hayes of "The Love Scrolls" @ thelovescrolls.com

The idea that GM is a threat to America cannot be any further from the truth. GM isn't a threat to anybody...well maybe except for Buick. To be honest I didn't read the article, I will not waist my time. In fact, I stopped reading a lot of the press lately.

I just called a halt to all the media scuttlebut when it was either Forbes or Fortune that had an article on GM a couple of months ago that finally made me say forgetit. You probably heard it. Something like...

"GM: The Dead Horse is Done Dead Now Beat the Dead Horse Done Gone"

I figured if I believe in GM I will have to stop reading, believing and refuse to succumb to the media pessimism. It was a good call on my part, I am sure they missed out on the best performing Dow Jones 30 stock so far this year.

America has an addiction as the president said to oil. Well I say America has two addictions, one is no worse than the other.

1. An addiction to oil

2. An addiction to imports and everything foreign.

Now let us look at these two twin addictions to which GM is fighting the hardest and the most to break.

First of all we are tought that exporting raw materials is bad business because we should do value added products and sell those instead. For example, sell furniture instead of our lumber and realize extra work and higher value of our economy. When we import oil it's a raw material, then we add value by making oil into tires, rugs, tar etc. etc.

When we import cars there is no value added to our economy. The 5 million cars we import bloats our national trade deficit, lowers our wages, exports the profits which could be as high as $100 billion in a decade and erodes our manufacturing base. Remember it was our factories that came to our rescue during war, if those factories don't exist they cannot be converted.

Americans have come to the realization that our reliance on oil imports is dangerous but they have yet to realize our reliance on manufactured goods is just as dangerous and actually, more destructive to the economy.

I remember as a little kid walking through Kmart to see what was "Made in the U.S.A.". Well today if you take that same walk as I did and search for that sign, you would be delusional. Just so long as we have people like that columnist for a paper like that, rest assured that "Made in the U.S.A." moniker will become only more scarce in the near future.

That is why I pray GM will not fall victim to people like that. Because it's not just about GM, it's about America.

The twisted thing about this is that they'd probably print a letter of praise from Toyota without editing a word.

All I can say is keep fighting GM - as long as I can see that YOU are not content with Toyota buying you out, regardless of what some clueless Toyota-driving Journalist thinks, I will keep buying your products.

I'm not surprised knowing the New York Times. I think when it comes to liberal issues they bend over backwards and do backflips. I also think when it comes to "corporations", they plunder mercilessly without remorse.

Here is the fastest way to get what you want to say in print. Buy a full page ad in the Washington Post, WSJ, Boston Globe, Houston and San Francisco Chronicle (you get the picture), and use that ad space to air that rebuttal.

Don't advertise in the NYTimes. Plus, most people who read the times don't actually live in NYC. The paper has a smaller local subscription than Newsday, NYPost, NYDailyNews.

Why would the NY Times let the facts get in the way of a good story?

I tend not to read the trash they (NY Times) call journalism. There are more facts in articles about alien babies fathered by bigfoot than seen in any NY times article.

They have more trouble saying fair and balanced as Fonzi had saying sorry.

Amusing.

As Churchill wrote, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

So, I don't find it any great shock that balance, truth, independence, or even literary freedom, should be the first casualty in a war waged in words.

I do applaud GM simply for putting out facts, and opinions, and clearly defining the difference. This meets a higher standard than to which the journalists appear to practice.

I also appreciate the sense of humour.

Good show.

Sigma - the last thing GM should do is to respond to an editorial feature with advertising. Advertising lacks the credibility, authority and impartiality that editorial content (apart from in the NYT) carries.

As a mid-level PR guy, my advice would be to continue to provide the NYT with information on GM, but offer a round of interviews with someone like Richard Wagoner to its toughest competitors - such as the ones you mentioned.

Advertising may be great for selling cars, but when it comes to defending corporate reputations, it has no place at the table.

Ed

Brian,

I've got an idea that I think you're going to love. First of all, I echo what sigma said: go on the offensive in major newspapers around the country. Beyond that, how about going on Face the Nation or any of the Sunday news shows? Start doing Good Morning America and Regis and Kelly. Go mainstream media with radio ads. Not all of these directly attack Mr. Friedman. Instead, use them to directly attack his points. Have you seen the PC vs Mac commercials lately? They're cool, hip, and thoughtful....and most importantly, memorable. If you truly believe that Friedman is wrong and your cars are world-class, go up against Toyota head to head in a commercial. Put up the EPA fuel ratings. Put up the performance numbers. Then put up the price differential and drop a piggy bank on their car (retaliation for Toyota's latest commercial about piggy banks and pennies). FIGHT BACK in a way that will enlighten consumers and entertain them. That's the true way to win this war.

Nathan Lawless
Indianapolis, IN

Now you know why Bill O'Reilly can't stand the guys at the NY Times. They are plainly biased. Maybe a spokesperson for GM should go on the Factor and tell about their unfair and biased experience with the times. It would give GM good air time in front of over 5 million viewers and rebut the Times in a very public forum. Those guys are total cowards and deserve to be shamed for their lack of journalistic and editorial integrity. Just a thought...

I think that the main priority for you was to get the letter published and that you had a basic agreement from the Times to print your response.

That is actually quite a lot considering how many letters are received.

I don't agree with some of the Times negotiating over the letter, but the length of the original letter did not respect a typical length you'll see there. As you said, even Clinton and Schumer were only allowed 304 words.

You are completely correct that you should have been able to call Mr. Friedman's column "rubbish" with respect to the tone of his writing. I also agree that many publications' practices of editing letters have long gone beyond what they should and what is appropriate.

But the most important thing was getting the majority of your letter published and regarding those frustrations as an issue... such as is being discussed here.

As you know, sometimes you can be completely right and be left with nothing to show for it. While it strikes me that you are as strongly principled person as I am, with deep disdain for these compromises, still I think the letter's publication was the paramount concern.

(I do not work for the Times.)

If the NYT had to run a "rebuttal" from every corporation, politician, actor, musician, diplomat and dog catcher who felt "aggrieved" by something written by NYT staffers, it would require a whole separate section, not just a skimpy letters column. GM sends its "message" out every day across the land: "We don't care if there is a gas shortage. Just keep buying our ridiculously oversized gas guzzlers so we won't go out of business to more efficient automakers."
Change that absurd message and you won't have to "rebut" some egotistical columnist.

WOW, all I can say is -- good for you!

I am always amused to hear the almighty NYT's applies standards to criticism they can't seem to mandate themselves. And again, always amused how their arrogance ultimately makes them the story.

Tell me...is there a moat and ceremonial guards surrounding that old grey lady I don't know about?

If it were me I would try to get this thing on TV... such as abc news or something. Have a news reporter from TV talk to you and get your facts. Of course this would prolby take money to have this on TV but I think it would be worth it. It would get your message out to most of America! (If this whole thing is even feasible)

It's their newspaper. Tough crap for GM.

That's interesting that "rubbish" is "not the tone we [the NY Times] use in Letters".

This must be a very, very new rule, because only last year the word was used in an op-ed.

May 18, 2005
Waiting for C.E.O.'s to Go 'Nuclear'
By MATT MILLER

Next, eligible C.E.O.'s have to grasp that most rhetoric in the health debate - as exemplified by the Thatcher example above - is rubbish. Republican C.E.O.'s who think "big government" is always the problem may be at special psychic risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/opinion/18miller.html?ei=5090&en=80858dec257974a8&ex=1274068800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Call me cynical (after all, I am a former newspaper reporter), but letters to the editor count as free stuff..and they are often read with more interest than the rest of the publication. I only wish that this little mag had lots of letters from readers. I'd run every one of them.
Regards, Paul Liptrot
Editor, Call Centre Europe
Walton-on-Thames, UK

Rubbish has also been used in letters plenty of times.

You can follow the links here:
http://www.inopinion.com/features/?itemid=764

Now that's some ballsy corporate blogging! Kudos to GM for leveraging the power of the blog to overcome the power of the pen.

Yeah, the Times should have run your response to Friedman's 'over the top' column, even though it is not particularly responsive to his main point -- that it's appalling that you're offering a rebate to encourage people to buy a vehicle that wastes gas. GM can be more corporately responsible by discontinuing such inefficient vehicles.

As a recently retired president and publisher of a 55,000 daily (and still growing) newspaper, it saddens me that newspapers like the NYT masquerade as fair and balanced vehicles of daily information and then limit, edit and emasculate any qualified response to their opinions. They love to say they're "Keepers of the Public Trust". I guess that means protecting the un-washed, logical-thinking citizens from any kind of opinion that is not instep with their far left-wing, liberal points of view.

A true Public Trust would provide adequate, unedited space to those who beg to differ with their slanted view. But that is certainly not the case!

What a travesty! What a dissappointment! What a bunch of juvenile morons running that sorry show! As a former member of the "Fourth Estate", I apologize. We are not all so awesomely unfair...

Umm, you're GM. Buy a full page of advertising and print all the rebuttal you want. If they refuse to take your money (I doubt they will) then you know that your advertising dollars are better spent elsewhere...

Good Job Brian! The only thing that paper is good for, is house training my dog.

Keep up the good work!

The New York Times' dishonest news reporting and editorializing are currently the subject of a landmark public interest lawsuit.

The lawsuit, brought by the non-partisan, non-profit citizens' organization, Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), is the first ever to sue The Times for "journalistic fraud" and to seek to remove its front-page motto "All the News That's Fit to Print" as a false and misleading advertising claim.

The lawsuit papers -- and two summarizing press releases -- are posted on CJA's website, www.judgewatch.org, accessible via "Latest News" and the sidebar panel, "Suing The New York Times".

We invite you to visit the website and to contribute to this historic battle to bring accountability to The Times for the benefit of all our nation's citizens.

Elena Sassower, Director
Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA)

When it comes to fair and balanced reporting on the domestic automakers and GM
in particular the NY Times is the functional equivalent of Al Jazeera.

I read the e-mail exchange with a sense of shock and disbelief. I have canceled my subscription to the NY Times. If the farce I just read in that e-mail exchage is an example of the apparently well-rooted protection of outright slander that the Times practices then I will not play any part in supporting it.

The New York Times is a journalistic disgrace. Their reporter is allowed to make an attack so vicious that even he says it was over the top and the target of his hatred is not allowed to respond in anything remotely the same? The Times finds it convenient to quickly publish four letters to the editor in support of Friedman's column. Are we expected to believe that nobody wrote a letter in support of GM or is it far easier to believe now that the New York Times would rather eat its own foot than publish a single such letter? Quite frankly, after reading the e-mail exchange I would not trust the New York Times to fairly report the correct time of day if it did not serve their viewpoint. I have no doubt that Friedman's slanted, defamatory and unprofessional reporting extends to his views on everything else he either dislikes or disagrees with. Others may listen to him to deepen their ignorance. I have now seen how he not only operates but is allowed to fester.

What a worthless and grossly overrated rag the New York Times is easily shown to be.

It is time for GM to stop talking and start acting as harshly as Friedman has. Cancel every single scrap of advertising with the NY Times annd its affiliates and mandate that said ban last a full year with a 2-year ban strongly considered.

FORMALLY SUE THE TIMES FOR DEFAMATION. I mean it. The only thing that will rein them in and serve notice to others is when they have to defend themselves in court at serious cost for the reckless acts of both their reporters and editors.

Let's see... it's OK for them to call you a 'crack dealer' in their paper, but it's too undignified for you in a letter to refer to that statement as being... 'rubbish'.

Works for me!

WE brought alot of this on ourselves, its called the 'Global Economy', now stand your ground GM and fight it like a d*** good company should.

Agreed that your letter, 200 words with "rubbish" included, should have been published. However, understand that The NYT gets about 1000 e-mails per day for about 10 letters. So, by turning down the invitation to edit "rubbish" you did a little bit of nose cutting.
Regular letter writers to The Times would probably agree with me that the newspaper is generally pretty good about publishing vanilla criticism, but bristles when you get a little too close to the heart. Try to find some examples of letters getting published critical of the 15+ editorials the newspaper published supporting Judith Miller and/or a federal confidential shield privilege.
Would also second the writer's suggestion that you follow through on this with B. Calame, the newspaper's ombudsman. He may well find this worhty of a critical column.

Can't be said that GM doesn't put it all out there. Heck they even let the Toyota faithful write into these blogs with their bias. Oh by the way, try and do the same about Toyota, that website will close up tighter than the minds of the NY Times staff.

I think you ran into a situation where regular staffers were afraid to allow one of the paper's "stars" to be criticized in his own paper. Remember the Mitch Albom case? Same situation. Some columnists become untouchables, much to the detriment of their papers. It's absolute rubbish that you weren't allowed to call Friedman's spewings how you saw them. Definitely contact the public editor -- it's a story waiting to happen for him.

I imagine Tom Friedman is skimming these comments so let me offer him a suggestion...

Tom,

Print GM's reply yourself - in your next column.

I'm inclined rather to the view that it was exttraordinarily arrogant of you to think that you could have whatever you think appropriate printed in the NYT. What - because it's a 'letter'? Get over it. And buy an ad.

I'm surprised you all didn't manage to compromise on "Nonsense."

This scenario illustrates better than anything else - how vital BLOGs are in a democracy....

BTW:
Also, the NYTimes has a FORUM - Do consider posting your ENTIRE concerns there as well.

The negative publicity the Times will receive as this news spreads - will ultimately be more detrimental to them than if they had just cooperated fairly.

Perhaps this is why the NYT and other papers are seeing declining readership. I'm an 24 year old male, and am reading about this for the first time after being forwarded from another website. Tom Friedman Who?

Brian,
I'm not a G.M. customer, I prefer Ford's late '80s/early '90s "Police Special" Crown Vics, but I strongly agree with your remarks about the New York Times. It too often seems that "freedom of speech" these days is limited to those who own/control a newspaper and/or broadcasting network. For myself I ignore the NYT and their ilk, preferring to get my news from online sources, such as the blogs, which make no bones about their affiliations, allowing me to make my own decisions about their veracity.

I hope the NYT bashing is therapeutic, but it doesn't change the facts as Tom Friedman layed them out...

It seems bizarre that The New York Times would not allow the letter to be published. I suppose this is another situation which is symptomatic of the decline of printed news media.

Can The New York Times still afford to be so arrogant? I don't mean the article itself, a columnist for a newspaper is allowed to make mistakes and also to assume a viewpoint and take a stand to support it, right or wrong. This is everyone’s right. But when a newspaper refuses to allow a person, group or corporation defend itself against blatant attacks, it seems to me to be a sign of the end for the publication.

To Bwright:

Great comment, great idea.

I bet if GM cancels all advertising with the NYT for one year, Friedman and Co will get the message. But to be clear, it's not about revenge or any such thing. It's about sending a message that irresponsible journalism has severe consequences.

Chris Hayne

First of all, don't lump the NYT editorial section in with the rest of the paper - the NYT is a great source of good, relatively non-biased, accurate information, whether you agree with their editorial staff or not. Don't believe everything O'Reilly tells you.

Secondly, I gotta say that I stand with GM on this one. If Friedman writes an attack on you, and especially if he later states that he wanted to get your attention, it is only fair that they allow a response of sufficient length. The fact that they have attempted to edit and control the response's CONTENT and not just grammar/spelling is shameful. As journalists, they well know the difference between "rubbish" and "we beg to differ."

Thirdly, this is a great post, and it demonstrates that you guys have a good understanding of new media. I think this is one of the most important examples so far of how a company can use a blog to

Maybe NYT can hire Michael Moore,disguised as a Pizza delivery man,to drop into GM's Headquarters lobby repeating over and over "I'd like to speak to the Head Crack Dealer" and we can all have a laugh at how upset the security guards get. That'll get our attention.

Take out a full page ad, GM, and run the full transcript of this blog. Put the ad in the NYT.

Push this issue. Make IT the news. Friedman should have his feet held to the fire and GM should have the balls to fight back and put some serious money into doing it.

I think you had the right to use the word rubbish if you wanted. However, I do not think Friedman's main point was actually rubbish. I think he is right that it is bad for America, and good for the oil theocracies and the terrorists they spawn, to have GM giving special incentives to people to buy gas-guzzling cars.

Hmmmm,

Seems like the obvious thing to do would be to encourage GM dealers not to support the newspaper with TENS of MILLIONS of dollars in advertising every year.

It is you, GM, that enables the NY Times. You pay Mr. Friedman's salary.

A cursory reading of blogs would reveal that The Times every day writes stories making false accusations against many organizations. And frequently refuses to publish letters of objection.

Now that your ox has been gored, you're finally figuring out how your money has been put to use.

Hard for me to work up much sympathy for you, really.

"I'm inclined rather to the view that it was exttra ordinarily arrogant of you to think that you could have whatever you think appropriate printed in the NYT. What - because it's a 'letter'? Get over it. And buy an ad."

But ofcourse, rubbish is inappropriate, and so is inviting Friedman, the author, to a GM conference.

..And yes its a letter, in response to an article where a company is called the car industry's crack dealer.

Kanhar Munshi

Here's an idea:

How about just admitting that GM doesn't make any car that gets 40+ miles per gallon, and that while, thanks to rebadging, that GM makes more vehicles that get 30+ mpg (highway, not highway and city combined), that Honda and Toyota both actually sell more vehicles that get 30+ mpg (combined), and then start a plan to get some truly fuel efficient vehicles on the road? No, the pseudo-hybrid Saturn Vue doesn't count.

The sooner GM follows Toyota's lead in building fuel-efficient high quality vehicles, the sooner you can quit the whining and let your cars speak for themselves.

Once you all stop designing and building so much "rubbish", we won't need to read these rather sad complaints. I mean, is there anything more pathetic than a PR flak for one of the largest companies in the world waxing maudlin?

If you want the press to treat you well, make some decent high-mileage cars that handle reasonably well and hold up over the long term.

If you want their continued derision and a continued decline in sales, keep making uninspired gas hogs that aren't any fun to drive. Nobody doubts GM's ability to make trucks that are among the best in the world.

GM just needs to stop making cars that are among the worst.

Good work GM.

P.S. I love my 2005 Saturn. It's currently getting me between 30 and 35 miles per gallon.

Besides, who reads the New York Times?

Don't hold your breath - the NYTimes has its own agenda and its NOT what's good for GM OR this country.

http://ucca.org/famine/gordondispatch.html

This is why I do not read the NYT. WHy read something when you know the outcome?

I used to sell GM cars in the late80's. And GM has come a long way (need more re-invention).

GM has always been rather inventive with their marketing campaigns, the onstar thing is good.

Friedman and NYT have an axe to grind. A political campaign to kick off.

I am sure they would be upset over E85 because of the midwest pandering.

GM, forget about the NYT, they have marginalized themselves. The traditional media is shooting themselves in the foot to make sure they will no longer be in the front lines.

Little do they know that this is a new battle where the front lines are no longer visible.

It will not be long, and the influence of the NYT will be diminished.

Keep up the good work. Keep inventing new products and incentives for the consumers and ignore the relics.

I hope you can get the (excellent) reply to Friedman's rubbish printed in full in a Detroit newspaper. How about getting it printed in other newspapers around the country where Friedman is syndicated? Now there's an idea: a nationwide newspaper revolt against the tryanny of NYT... get the letter printed everywhere but New York. (Probably wouldn't do any good there anyway.)

Caleb- No not because it is a letter, because the NYT attacked GM on the Editorial page and the should have the right to respond. This is called fair. Even handed. Stuff like taht. He already showed how others had published longer letters. And as Friedman picked the fight, they should have the right to respond how ever they seem fit. Not because they are GM, not because they are arrogant. Because that is what an honest paper would do

NY Times treachery has a long and pathetic history. Duranty won a Pultizer with his cover up of the Ukrainian Holocaust 0f 10 million in 1932.

But a competing reporter, Gareth Jones, snuck into that country and documented the mass starvation. Jones was villified in the NY Times ala GM despite reporting the truth.

His character assassination was followed by his mortal assassination a short time later.

Gareth's ancesters are still waiting for a response from the NY Times.

http://www.garethjones.org/letters.htm

For what it's worth, I thought the 200 word version was better. It managed to hit all the main points, and did so in a tight, focused manner. Did you think to counter that changing "Rubbish" to "We beg to differ" would put you over their imposed word count?

PS

There is a tier system when it comes to emails for everyone, and I would think an email from a head honcho at GM would get a little more attention than one from Lillian in the Bronx. So now that that is out of the way, I would take out ads in other papers pointing out the inaccuracies (why give the times in of your money?). Then pull your whole ad budget from them, and any associated publications. That should at least get the ball rolling on their side.

A number of these replies have used the term “fair and balanced” as an attribute of a good newspaper. Isn’t it ironic that it was a phrase made popular by Fox News. Of course it would never apply to the “drive by media.” That’s another phrase that is gaining popularity; with good reason.

Good going GM, I just bought a new Caddy.

I find this story sad. A once important newspaper is no longer the vital resource it once was, and its columnists have lost their ability to influence a nation thanks to the thousands of bloggers who can write better than them.

Perhaps it's time for the Times to end nepotism. Shareholders should look at the NYT stock and fire Pinch Sulzberger.

The New York Times;
"All the news that we can create,
all the dissent we can stifle,
all the censorship we can bring to bear,
all the propganda you can swallow."

I'm amazed at all the people who say "You're GM, buy an ad!"

That's sort of like saying, "Your new Pontiac broke down? Buy a GMC truck and tow it here!"

Yes, GM could buy the ad, unlike you or me, but it comes awfully close to being a shakedown if they have to. In any case, the point is not that the NYT wouldn't print their response at all. The NYT would, but it wanted to manage that response to remove the things that would make them look bad-- and then have the APPEARANCE of having given GM full freedom to say what they wanted. That appearance, frankly, would have been a lie to the readers, and GM was right to refuse to be a party to that deceit.

Speaking of the NYT, Mark Steyn had a great piece about how they mauled a piece they invited him to write, the first and last time they did, interjecting all sorts of PC nonsense that made mush of his points. I can't find it online alas...

What am I missing here?

NYT accuses GM of committing a crime (bribery) and GM's pissed because the NYT won't print GM's letter? GM's response appears a bit weak given the accusation.

Either GM committed the crime and whines about the NYT's letters policy or GM's innocent and either gets a retraction or sues for libel. Anything less than a retraction suggests very strongly that the NYT was right.

So GM...are you guilty or innocent of bribery? If you're innocent, quit with the letters to the editor business and let loose the lawyers.

This is typical for the NY Times. A few months ago I spent weeks negotiating and pleading with one of their editors to get a correction to a story published. One of their movie reviews strayed into fact assertion and the fact was outrageously wrong (it was a claim that Israel was in Iraq harvesting organs from Iraqi casualties). There was no question that the statement they made was wrong, racist, defamatory, etc. I have the email chain where they first try to claim that the assertion has support, then they claim it was close enough to being a fact, then they go silent, then they finally admit that they made a mistake. The Public Editor kept his distance and was of no help.

It's funny that the Times editors always complain about the government's refusal to admit mistakes or take criticism, as the Times is probably the poster child for that affliction.

I just wanted to comment that I think this is about the best use of a corporate blog that I have seen, to get your story out in an unfiltered way. Nice job.

It's about time GM fought back! The liberal press is trying to destroy all the leading American corporations. Do whatever you have to do to get your side out. It is also time that we consumers boycotted the liberal biased newspapers! I have cancelled all of my subscriptions. I get all the news I need from radio and the internet.

Amazing. Good for you publishing this here! I'll make my next car a GM!

Let's be honest. The Times is crap. Hyperbol and flat out lies. It is a leftist driven rag with no integrity. I am a Ford fan myself, but i stand with GM on this. The Times will say anything to damage GM and Ford and forward there Global Warming agenda. They want us to believe it is Dick Cheney's SUV that is causing Global Warming, but not Al Gore's SUV. They tell us they haven't seen temps this high in thousands of years, when Fred Flintstone's SUV caused Global Warming. Yet they never tell us exactly how many MPG's Mr. Flintstones SUV got or if it was an import. Let's be honest, Global Warming is real but, the cause is still NOT completely understood. Untill we include the weakining of our magnetic field and increased sun activity in these Warming studies, how can any of it be valid.

My suggestion. Take out a full page ad in the Post with your letter. Let them know that the hard working people of GM have more integrity than the Times.

This is the NYT, right? The same newspaper that printed a page one 'news' story (not an editorial) that airlines were considering putting backboards instead of seats in airliners? Then took a month to admit the story was essentially bogus?

The NYT writer hadn't bothered getting a reaction from Airbus. When other newspapers did, the company's spokesman described the story as 'crap.'

Lucky thing for Airbus they didn't try to get that printed in the NYT's letters.

Several of the comments I’ve read above are striking in their apparent naiveté. To paraphrase a few of them: "Why should GM get its letter published when SO many other letters to the Editor are received on any given day; and for that matter, what makes GM so special, anyway?"

To answer the first question – why should GM get its letter published (and without significant editing)? Because decent journalistic practice demands that a party which has been severely smeared, if not outright libelled, by a news organ have the opportunity to respond in kind and in the same forum (actually, decent journalistic practice would have prevented a hit piece like Friedman's from appearing in the first place). If this were, say, Sen. Hilary Clinton or Rev. Al Sharpton, no one would be demanding that s/he buy an ad in the NYT to rebut the attack. No, they would properly be given as much room on the “Letters” page as they desired to mount their rebuttal.

But what, you ask, makes GM so special that it deserves to have its letter considered for publication at all? As unbelievable as it is that such a question can even be asked seriously, like it or not, GM is not your average libellee. This is a company, that no matter what you may think of it now or what its present financial condition, deserves to be heard when it is libelled. Why? Because GM is perhaps the most significant corporation to have ever existed and certainly the most noteworthy in the history of the United States. In aggregate, GM has, I am certain, built more products, generated more revenue and employed more people than any other entity outside of the federal government. Directly and indirectly, GM still accounts for nearly 1% of the United State's Gross Domestic Product. More than 1 million people daily depend on GM for retirement income and health care. 1 million!

But GM’s size and impact alone is not the only reason the NYT should have come down off its high horse. A certain respect should have been given to a company that is directly responsible for one of the greatest of all gifts made to the City of New York: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute. For whom, might you ask, is the institute named: Alfred Sloan, the legendary chairman of General Motors, who made a $4,000,000 donation in 1945 (the equivalent of nearly $50,000,000 today) and Charles Kettering, GM’s chief engineer, who pioneered the application of modern industrial techniques to the battle against cancer. Countless New Yorkers (and others), owe their lives to the generosity of GM and its people. And Sloan-Kettering is certainly not the only gift this corporation has ever bestowed on the City of New York, either.

Let’s call it like it is: the reason that the Times really refused to publish GM’s letter is this -- the Times and a large part of its readership have a visceral hatred for what GM stands for and will use all the means in their possession to achieve the destruction of the company, no matter what the cost to the United States. In doing so, it will use every cheap and underhanded trick at its disposal, the latest being the Friedman “column”.

Shame on you, New York Times and shame on those of you who continue to subsidize this “drive-by” journalism with your patronage.

I'm frankly appalled at the New York Times. Sure, buy an ad -- frankly I'd feature the ridiculousness of their problem with "rubbish" -- but the implication of writing a letter means it's personal and you should be able to say what you want to say as long as you don't defame. I'm a subscriber...and this makes me furious. Good luck, Brian. I say go out, no holds barred and humiliate these arrogant idiots. It would make me think more highly of GM.

I came here via Mickey Kaus, via Instapundit. I say..thank God for the internet and blogs. The NYTimes and other media can't get away with what they did in the past. Over the last few years I have gradually lost whatever respect I used to hold for them. And it completely went down the drain when reading "Pinch" Sulzberger's weasly "I'm sorry" speech last week. Unbiased? HaHaHa

Caleb,

Fair enough. But then its "extraodrinarily arrogant" of the New York Times to claim to be an objective paper.

I haven't bought the NY Times for years, over issues like these. I'd suggest pulling your ads for a few months. That might get their attention, especially given the recent performance of their stock.

Normally, something like this would get me to look closely at GM for my next car. But my current car is a Saturn, the first new car I've ever bought. And the way I was treated (having to pay for to correct a design defect, even with my extend bumper to bumper warrantee in place) means my next car will be anything but GM.

Perhaps GM should just stop advertising in the NYTIMES.
I would guess THAT might get the Times attention. Ha.

If I were GM boss, that is exactly what I would do.

And if I were a NYTImes reader, I would switch papers.

wk

I'd just forget about it. Business is full of ups and downs. The New York Times limelight comes with a lot of grief. Focus on your product and the people who buy your product and all's well that ends well.

Technically, if the NYT staff were to "take a crack at" GM's letter TO the editor, wouldn't that make it a letter FROM the editor? ;)

As for the NYT's insistence on using "beg to differ" - no wonder! It would make GM sound like they were asking (begging) for charity instead of trying to set the record straight.

Surely that list of questions NYT threw in near the end of your ongoing communication was a joke?

I need to go look up the words "fair" and "balanced" because the definitions I remember are much different than what they appear to be for the NYT.

When I had a Letter to the Editor too long to print, I offered it as an Op-Ed column. I waited over a month and figured my gambit had lost. Not so. The phone call I got also offered a photo op. Does the Times accept outside Op-Eds, or is it just too big for touches like that? And would it still disallow your use of "Rubbish"? What Rubbish!

This blog will, if it has not already, overcome the bad press the Friedman and the NY Times attempted to bring down on you.

Since you indicated that you would like to hear our comments, I would like to hear how many hits you've received.

If it's any consolation to you, what you're seeing is the symptoms of a dying institution. In its heyday, fifty years ago, when the New York Times aspired to a national leadership role, they would have gladly printed your letter at whatever length. Indeed, they might have written a follow-up article which was probing but fair. Time was when they'd've been proud to be dealing with a billion-dollar pillar of the US economy as equals, exchanging viewpoints.

But now their circulation is tanking, their credibility is in tatters (Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, Judith Miller, and on and on), and rings are being run around them by the new media. Bound to put you in a bad mood.

So like the surly old dying dog, in pain from a thousand cuts, they snap and snarl. They've no more hope of sharing the victor's podium with you in the 21st century, so they settle for a mean little bully's victory over you on their letters page. Have a little pity on them.

Caleb Hornquist wrote:
"I'm inclined rather to the view that it was exttraordinarily arrogant of you to think that you could have whatever you think appropriate printed in the NYT. What - because it's a 'letter'? Get over it. And buy an ad."

I'm inclined to wonder how much Senator Clinton pays for her letters. Caleb, you need to get over your bias. Fair is fair. Not fair is easy to spot for me. Too bad your blind eye makes you say funny things as well.

Wow have to say that something is seriously wrong with the media when we the people get censored when we write them.

Thaks for the heads up, Brian.

It's not like the NYT's felt it wasn't the public's right to know your response or that it wasn't news fit to print, either. It was just that they control what it is the public finds out through their publications. It doesn't have to be the truth they tell us or the best arguments from both sides. It all comes down to what THEY want.

And while commenter Caleb's thinking it arrogant of you to respond to libel in the way you want is nothing but rubbish, he is right about buying an ad. Or for that matter, don't buy any ads, none at all. After all, that is your coporation's right, too.

Bashing GM and large, comfortable, safe cars is a big fad in certain circles -- and especially among the young "hip" demographic and the "politically correct" minimalists the Times is trying so hard to woo.

Nonsense. I have owned Buicks more than any other make, as my father did before me; and I started driving over 50 years ago. I've also driven Toyotas on occasion, and there is no comparison for comfort and luxury -- not to mention the proven safety of a heavy, sturdy vehicle.

-- Dick

Never thought I'd be on the side of GM, but hey... when a GM corporate communications guy refers to a NYT column "male bovine excrement" they deserve all the props they can get.

I wonder if the NYT would have run the original column had Friedman's target been a bloated old media company being bested in the market by those embracing new technology.

As far as cars are concerned, there is no question that every car company in the world knows how to build a quality product. I have no doubt that in their next product cycle that Indian companies like Tata and Mahindra will be making world class product and the statistical quality difference between manufacturers will continue to shrink. Market acceptance is another thing. In the three years it takes to get a new car to market, tastes can change. Perception is often more important to the market than reality. The entire hybrid thing is an example. Toyota is perceived to be environmentally sensitive because of the Prius. Toyota is pushing hybrids because they are weak in diesel tech.

I'm no huge fan of GM, but they are being good corporate citizens by working on the fuel economy of their pickups and SUVs. GM and Ford each sell almost a million full size pickups a year. Improving the mileage even 1 mpg on a full size truck might save more fuel overall than engineering and selling a 40 mpg econobox.

I can think of a number of quality cars that GM is selling right now, cars that are very competitive in their market segment, but I think they are going to have to leapfrog Toyota to regain a positive perception in the market. Toyota is just rolling out the new Camry, the best selling car nameplate in North America. To regain market share in the heart of the market, GM has to look at the new Camry and not build a competitive car, but rather a car that will be better than even the next generation Camry (or Civic if we look at the benchmark for small cars).

And the Buick version has to have port holes.

BTW, at the NAIAS this year, one of the Italian guys who works for Maserati marketing told me that the best looking car at the show was the Buick Enclave SUV concept, which does have port holes on the hood.

I'm the Opinion Page editor for a small Northern California daily, and I can only laugh.

The length is a fair thing to haggle over -- we do it daily and receive a lot fewer letters than the Times. But "rubbish"? Perhaps that would be offensive language in 1906. What a hoot.

LMAO, You are GM! Act like it.

Buy The New York Times outright.

First fire Friedman. And then anyone who knows him.

Next split the publishing, media, radio & tv empire into bite size pieces and sell them each off to the highest bidder.

Not only will you reep a sweet revenge, but you will profit handsomely from the venture.

Uh...Maybe I ought to have a talk with Rick Wagoner first to get his perspective though. He seems to know what he is doing, and he is not so quick to react impestuously as I would. Why is this man always right? Hmmm.

I hate the smugness of the NYT columnists. Freidman, Dowd, and the rest of them are just beyond belief.

I'm in the market for a new car. Freidman has just convinced me to buy an Envoy.

Fact is that more people learned of Friedman's idiotic rant by reading of it here than read it in the times.
The times is rubbish, half a notch above the Enquirer.

This is another example of the New York Times projecting -- their biased, arrogant, untruthful "news" coverage is what is dangerous to America. They will not rest until they have torn down everything that is good about this country.

Hmmmm.

1. Why people blame GM for customer's purchases of SUVs is beyond me. You can't force people to buy cars that they don't want.

2. Expecting rationality from the NYT is frankly irrational.

3. IMHO I generally like GM cars, but they're frankly lacking in some ways.

If you guys want me as a customer, then pander to my desires. And right now, as a 41 year old man, my desires run along the lines of some of the classic muscle cars of my youth.

If GM would just dust off some of those old designs and upgrade the engine and electronics, but **NOT** the styling or body, then I'm absolutely *there*!

Personally I'd like to own one of those older muscle cars but they're just too much work to buy, keep, maintain and restore. Unless you're willing to do a full-on restoration job bolt-by-bolt, it's just asking for trouble.

So if GM would re-issue perhaps the 1968 SS Camaro with upgraded electronics and engine on a limited issue basis, I'm pretty certain that they'd sell out completely. A lot of us middle-aged types have a certain fondness for our youth, but have little desire to wrangle with 30+ year old cars. Back then when I was young I loved the car, but no way could I afford it. Now I can afford it, but now they're either junkers, carshow cars or have been largely ripped apart and remade into street racers.

And no. The 2006 Camaro looks like cross between 300ZX and a Cylon. But that's my opinion so YMMV.

The New York Times is wrong in not allowing the original 490-word rebuttal in, unedited.

GM is wrong for acting against both the interests of America for the last twenty years; and, because of their constant anti-environment stance and actions all those years, also against the interests of humanity. And, they are wrong for buying politicians.

Tom Friedman, on the other hand, is guilty; of frustration. He's been remarkably consistent on this issue for years, and always includes specific - almost always rationale- suggestions; something both lousy GM management, and that lousy labor union, never do.

Both the NYTimes and GM need to straighten up and fly right (er, straight). Tom - you need to keep on writing.

Dave Huntsman
Cleveland, Ohio USA

Everything about the NYTimes is unadulterated Rubbish AND adult male bovine excrement. Thank you for pointing that out.

GM should advertise on conservative blogs!! Skip the dinosaur media.

We would love to support GM. My wife has had great success with her Saturn (130,000 miles no problems) BUT she drives the freeway to work and needs a hybrid sticker for the carpool lane.

We will by a hybrid before September. Please contact me if you are interested. She is leaning toward the Honda Civic by default.

Lets cut the chase (rebuttle), do what you did to the LA Times. This got there attention real quick! This guy knows nothing about automobiles, much less the auto industy as a whole. He is a typical guy that has got something to say about everything - he likes to hear himself blabber. Now I waiting for some 'crackhead' from The Washington Post.

That's sticking it to The Man!

Wait a minute, you are The Man.

Hmm.

Well, congrats anyway.

I am 41 years old and at this point in my life I only buy GM, American Know-How and Assembled. I am trying to take back America and other then your home the next big investment you can make is in an Automobile, So after the BMW's the Infinity's I grew up, I put up... GM all the way!, so that Pat, Steve, Ruben,Shelly,Jim...etc can make a living and feed their families. The NYT piece saddens me, it's irresponsible and published with no real thought of its impact on the employees of GM and their families.

I just finished reading your letters to the New York Times. They were bold, gutsy, well written, and exactly what needed to do. You should have said things like this years ago, out loud and in public.

You should not be surprised that the New York Times ran roughshod over your rightful response to Friedman's article. Friedman and the Times have an agenda, one that is clearly and blatantly anti-capitalism and anti-American.

The U.S. auto industry is clearly a symbol (albeit a bit faded) of all that makes America the great country that it is. Which is exactly why publications like the Times hates it.

They don't care if the U.S. industry's failure throws the lives of countless families in total chaos.

They don't care if our economy is sent reeling.

That our industrial base is severely damaged is inconsequential to them. All organizations like the Times care about is making their generally incomprehensible positions known, facts be damned.

As the saying goes, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Tom Friedman will never take GM up on its invitation. To do that would imply that he and the Times could actually be wrong about something. And I've read and listened to enough to know that they are NEVER wrong about ANYTHING.

I suggest that, instead of submitting the letters to the editors of this or other such papers, you run them as a full-page advertisement.(I defy them to pass on the almighty dollar.) Run the letter in competing papers, in Time and Newsweek, GM's internet home page, on billboards--get your message out anywhere and everywhere you can. The public needs to see and hear what you said in those letters.

Get your side of the story out, and don't let up for a minute! Challenge the anti-GM establishment! Make them eat their words with the same passion that they use to slam you with!

Try buying ad space in the Times. I would be willing to bet they would sell you the space to print your original letter, along with this piece, and wind up looking very foolish into the bargain.

Anyone who feels they have slighted GM should email the NY Times and tell them what you think. If they get enough emails maybe they will realize the errors of their ways..

Haven't read through all the comments here yet, but I did a quick search on the NYT site, and found that the word "rubbish" has appeared in its pages about 1,400 times in the past 25 years.

That's an average of about 56 times a year--more than once every week.

You can find the search here:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?
frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&query=rubbish&srchst=
nyt&submit.x=32&submit.y=9&submit=sub&hdlquery=
&bylquery=&daterange=full&mon1=01&day1=01&year1=
1981&mon2=06&day2=10&year2=2006

The New York Times editorial staff members are arrogant, egotistical journalistic losers. They live in a different world from the majority of Americans, ergo what they write is viewed mostly as nonsense by us. Pity.

I've always thought that letters to the editor were supposed to reflect the views of the letter writer, not the editors of the newspaper. How naive of me.

I agree Mr. Friedman's NYT editorial was extreme, and I applaud GM's efforts to respond both in letter and blog form.

Having said that, let me offer my perspective on some related issues:

1) "GM offers more vehicles with EPA-estimated (30+ mpg)... than any automaker"
Come on, GM. People with basic analytic skills will see right through this one. You're (almost) as guilty as the NYT for spinning this fact. Since GM offers more vehicle models than anyone, I believe GM offers more vehicles BELOW 30 mpg than any other automaker. Because of CAFE regulations, I'd guess that GM's fleet is no better or worse than its competitors in terms of fleet fuel efficiency. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Unlike Mr. Friedman, I can take it.

2) Whatever you do to counter Mr. Friedman / the NYT, don't be too harsh. As a regular reader of the NYTimes, I can (unscientifically) attest to the fact that recent reviews of GM cars (Lucerne, Impala, Solstice, Hummer H3) have been fairly positive in the Times And I mean that in the strict literal sense: they've been generally positive, but fair in their criticism.

Didn't GM pull all advertising from the Los Angeles Times a while back?

Now it's time to do the same to the New York Times. Hit them where it hurts - economically.

Both papers have had massive layoffs in recent months.

Hmmm. Sounds like GM has more in common with both the LAT and the NYT than you'd think!

Great job to the respondants who found the word "rubbish" used elsewhere in letters. Editors have to realize that their emails are all public record these days. Go GM!

Eric

Truth hurst and Friedman was spot on. At a time when US nation interests are being damaged by the gross dependence on foriegn oil, GM rolls out a parade of Yukons. Insane. And as someone who renjts over 50 vehicles a year - broad range of makes and models - I can say that GM still makes a humdrum product that's middle of the pack. Hyundais are worse, Toyotas are simply better thought out and put together. Stop making excuses GM and try a) leap-frogging the competition, and b) making a car that's truly world-class and gets over 30 mpg.

GM. Bravo! Well done. Keep this up, show energy, force, and conviction, and I might even consider buying one of your cars!!!

I notice from the e-mail exchange that you were the first to suggest dropping "rubbish". I'm sure you had a good reason, but from here it looks like you sandbagged the good people at the Times.

That's OK. They started this fight, and if they were too dumb to see this coming....

keep up the good work.

Your letter says that GM spends less on Washington lobbying than other major corporations. How about providing some detail? How much does GM spend?

Also, I heard the other day that our national fleet of cars and trucks gets lower gas milage than it did a decade ago. Is that true of the cars and trucks GM sells?

Regarding Mr. Hornquist's suggestion that you buy an ad, I think that's an excellent idea. As long as it's not in the NYT. In fact, buy lots of ads, all over the country, and especially in NY publications, and refer people to the GM blogs which cite the URL's to this blog and the email back and forth. But I think you should withdraw all advertising from the NYT. There are better ways to reach sensible customers in New York.

Brian:

Kudos. You are being heard.

Wifey and I had settled on a spanking new car (Honda) -- GM models had fallen off radar. Your rebuttals made me take a second look (what about Saturn? I asked wifey). We're headed out this afternoon to test drive.

The Gray Lady may have sold an American made car today.

Trying to get fair play out of the New York Times has been a waste of time now for years. I put of with it until about five years ago when they put Al Sharpton on the cover of the Times Magazine. Since then they haven't gotten a penny out of me. I read it in the library to see what Pinch The Immature is up to lately.
Incidentally, three years ago I decided to stop buying anything not made in America. The Buick Le Sabre I bought is going just fine, regardless of what Mr, Friedman thinks.
posted by RVM, June 10, 2006

I saw Mr. Tom Friedman on Good Morning America plugging his book, "The World is Flat." He was pontificating about the book and unfortunately, Diane Sawyer, who I bet did not read the entire book, gave it an unusually strong endorsement. I was disappointed to see Ms. Sawyer do that. Mr. Friedman has had an axe to grind with GM for awile now, and he continues to slam us whenever he feels like it. His recent article was full of "rubbish."!!!! I could use stronger words, but I don't have the luxury of being a columnist for the NY Times. I am a GM dealer, who employs over 100 people. This article was an affront to all that is good in the US auto industry. My employees are hard working, honest, and generous members their community and staunch supporters of their manufacturer, GM. They have families and friends that are outraged by the assertions that were made in that column. As a GM dealer, I know what my fellow GM dealers contribute to their communities, churches, synagogues and mosques, and what GM has done for the United States, its citizens and its economy. Shame on you, New York Times, Shame on you Mr. Friedman. Why don't you take GM up on its offer to show you what they are doing and working on.
Keep on speaking out, GM. We're behind you 100%

I have an older GM vehicle, a 2000, and it gets over 30mpg...I wonder how many Toyotas got that kind of milage in 2000!?! For the record, I own 2 chevies, and do not work for GM, but will continue to buy GM Vehicles due to quality, and THIS ARTICLE :o)

Very well put GM. Kudos for putting it all online for everyone to put their own views on this. I imagine it was difficult to not cut off all ads like you did with the LAT in a knee jerk reaction and this case was a lot more severe. The LAT article was on a single product, but I think I heard you guys had a change in the lead PR spot which has lead to this new and open dialogue.

Searching for the word "Rubbish" in NYT site produces 42 pages of links to various articles in the paper where this word has been used. Just to be thorough in my research, I searched for the same word in Washington Post site. I only saw 2 pages of links!

I was a journalism major for about 4 years and worked on two publications in that time. Then I changed my major to education when I realized that I didn't want to be in a job that continued to propagate our culture of fear.

At any rate, the New York Times is free to print any opinion they like. And technically, they are free to deny rebuttal.

However, you are free to offer your rebuttal all over New York radio, TV, and competing periodicals.

Your GMT-900s are at the top of their class in almost every way. Your company has done an especially good job with them. I hope to see even greater efforts on your passenger car lines in the future.

As has been mentioned here already, the GMT-900s get better mileage than any other vehicle of comparable size and purpose on the market. Few people seem to remember this.

And few people (Friedman included) are failing to mention that Toyota is poised to bring out a bigger, fatter full-size truck with more power than ever. Doubtless the new Tundra will spawn a new Sequoia, as well as a Land Cruiser and Lexus LX. All of these vehicles presently get miserable mileage.

But Toyota is willing to sell every one they can build. And though they're marketing their incentives differently, their incentives are designed to get more customers into vehicles that are outdated, no longer class competitive, and get poorer fuel mileage than what GM offers. And Toyota is paying people MORE than GM is to take home their inferior, gas-swilling product under the guise that they're more responsible and environmentally conscious than your company. I wish more people realized this.

While it is true that the Chevy Aveo gets awful mileage for what it is - a tiny, lightweight 100hp car - and your Delta and Epsilon cars need more help in this area, it is a valid point that customers have a greater range of choices with GM than any other company if they want a 30mpg vehicle.

So volley back, GM. Don't take the 'rubbish'. If you want the American public to rally behind you again, you need to get bold. You need to act like you're strong. You need to counter all of the doom and gloom surrounding your company by saying you're not going to take 'rubbish' anymore.

Admit you've made mistakes. Apologize for them. Let people know that you've got products out NOW that rectify those mistakes of the past. And let the public know that the vehicles currently in development will make America proud.

Then make damned sure they do just that.

Don't just appeal to our intellect. Don't lean on spin. Deliver. And then get bold.

Don't blow this opportunity to show America that you're a strong company that's working hard, fighting fair, and isn't going to take crap from anybody anymore.

What's more American than that?

Hey did you all have to pay these guys to say these good things about you? Theres truth in the article .. and sometimes truth hurts --- ouch!

Good for GM! The NYTimes has been terrible for many, many years and I remember how they spent years talking about a failed land deal that the Clintons were fully exonerated on along with some nonexistent WMD war cheerleading that has been a deadly nightmare. Thanks for sharing this experience on how the NYT just doesn't get it, and never will.

GM's entry into hybrids is too little, too late. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and remember the oil crisis then. The automakers' response (and not just GM) was to make crappy little cars (my own parents bought the Dodge Aries' K cars -- ugly little things) while they left the innovation and design to the Japanese, who eventually came out with the best-engineered, most reliable vehicles. I know, because I bought a Honda Insight in 2004. I'd prefer to buy American, but what American car gets the kind of mileage mine does -- 66 or 67 mpg on the highway if I don't drive too fast and there isn't a lot of traffic. And others on the Honda Insight BBS are able to get much more -- around 100mpg in some cases. Detroit's entry into the hybrid market is a joke.

And sure, some people need large vehicles -- general contractors hauling beams around, for example. They should drive them. It's barbaric, however, for a suburban mom to drive some USS Nimitz of a vehicle -- prone to rollover, I might add. Unfortunately, the free market doesn't encourage morality. I am a freemarketeer, but as Thomas Frank said at the Human Behavior & Evolution Society recently, he has an expanded view of the libertarian principle of harm. As do I. Why should anybody unnecessarily pollute our air or endanger others on the road -- and how can anybody unnecessarily drive a huge vehicle in light of the 21-year-old American kids they see dying daily in Iraq. As I like to say to people, "Do you think about Marines getting their legs blown off when you get gas"?

And I hope, in the spirit of the free speech you profess to advocate, you let my comment through.

Why not simply stop buying ads in that paper? Let's face it, only senior citizens read papers exclsuively. Anybody else either reads both the net and newspapers, or doesnt read the paper at all. So you'll be saving a lot in your advertising budget, and I can all but aguarantee you won't notice a fall in revenue.

Why don't you submit your rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal? They love editorials that pander to corporate America.

would it be worth it to publish the full S. Harris response as an ad in the NY times? I know, I know - we would be handing the NYTimes more money, but at least our response would be seen??

Pulling ads or buying ads in the NYT would imply that GM thinks journalists' opinions can be bought. Not a good idea, there would be negative backlash nationwide.

Unless it turns out Friedman had recieved a free Toyota prior to that article.....

Major blogs such as this one are steadily eating away at the NYT ‘product’ and it’s easy to see why. When you provide an open platform to discuss your products, and you speak plainly, admit mistakes, and absorb criticism, the truth tends to rise to the top. Hopefully better products will ultimately result, but within the discussions, people know when an institution or corporation is spinning. The Times comes off badly here when the basic truth is laid open.

In this case, GM should stick to the high road. The Times has yet again exposed its socialist streak, but GM’s purpose is to build class-leading vehicles, not square off with a wounded media giant.

To Amy Alkon: I’m not sure how you can be a freemarketeer and simultaneously condemn some free choices as ‘barbaric’. The fact is, people are not buying big cars for mysterious reasons, they just need more room, generally. And although a 50 mpg Tahoe would be great to have, it is not yet possible. Even Saint Toyota couldn’t perform that miracle. In the meantime, I’m glad your Insight gets 67 MPG, but a two-seat, 1900 lb car will not meet the needs of many drivers, frankly, as the sales figures indicate (412 sold YTD). Also, 100 mpg does not exist outside of experimental vehicles. The same people spouting this also convinced Tom Friedman back in June 2005 that 500 MPG is currently possible. It is telling that he passed this off as fact in an earlier GM attack. Anyone who thinks these numbers are possible today is an uninformed lunatic—or a socialist with an agenda.

This is nothing new. Newspaper editors have the last word in who or what sees ink in their paper. If you present an opinion contrary to their enlightened view, you have little chance that it be published, if at all, without their judicious editing.

This is not reserved for the NYTimes alone. Our local newspaper regarding a hot local issue exercised the privilege to not print and/or edit opinions contrary to the paper’s leanings. My letters have experienced the rath of their blue pen stroke, and a letter from a State Legislator on the same topic found itself shortened to a subtext lacking its substantive points.

GM is offering an incentive to sell your products. Wow, what a concept! Does Friedman come out as strongly against cigarette companies for using coupons, etc? Does he smoke?

I present my position to you without bias. Whether I ultimately side with Friedman’s opinion or yours is inconsequential. The point is that we all have a belief that in this country of free speech, we have a right to our opinion and the right to respond to an apparent defamation. Unfortunately, these rights overall have been consistently circumvented. The censor’s sword cuts both ways.

GM has power and influence greater than the average person. You could pay for a full-page ad that expresses your opinion, but then they get your money while defending yourself. Better yet, withhold your advertising dollars, run an ad in a competitive newspaper, expressing your opinion and deriding the offending newspaper.

An ironic match: two former goliaths that have both seen their market share and profitability erode in the face of changed consumer preferences and their own arrogance.

Still, my sympathy's with GM on this one. The fuel-efficiency of Toyota and Honda's feel-good, do-little hybrids is overrated, as is Tom Friedman's badly edited, hurriedly-scribbled pop economism. My own suggestion to GM would be not to try to build up your own enviro-cred but to use fact and logic to take down the posturings of the anti-SUV brigade. We like SUVs, and those of us with small children and bad backs need SUVs; we cannot lean down far enough to hoist a child into a sedan. So give us something with decent MPG + good performance and unrivalled safety and quality, and leave Friedman and the other BS artists to their blather.

is it that the people at NYtimes are getting free toyotas or what?they look so bad on this page..not worth it.If they have to come clean they have to be unbiased.pull your ads out of their paper and use someone else.not everyone reads the nytimes.For gods sake the world is big...you are gm!

GM just needs to remember. The Times could care less. They could care less if GM went under and they could care less if a nuclear bomb took out middle America as along as there paper and there agenda survives. I am totally serious!
One thing I still would like GM to do is get a new marketing company. This would help. I have seen a couple of good advertisements but most that I have seen are bad and do not exploit the quality and dependability that GM actually does have. I could do a better job of making a commercial for them then whoever they have now. I am still serious.
GO GM!

Good for you for not running the edited letter. After reading the e-mail conversation, the Times folks come across as a bit arrogant. I think concessions for the sake of "just getting in the paper" have fed that arrogance a bit. Who says PR folks can't stick up for themselves, respectfully, no less.

You were overly generous with Friedman in stating that he often provides "rational fact supported opinions".

In response, "I beg to differ" or should we say "rubbish" instead?

Friedman is a hack in the mold of many of today's low quality talking heads so often seen opining on 24 hour cable news. His opinions are rarely fact supported and in fact, they are consistently pure speculation as in the article which caused your complaints.

This is a huge problem in what used to be considered the field of journalism. May the bloggers save us all. Nice job setting the record straight on your blog.

GM should be recognized as being the manufacturer offering vehicles in not only Hybrid and alternative fuels, but advanced gasoline and diesel engines. Recently I drove a Fuel Cell powered Zafira and was impressed with the power and drivability from what was an early generation model. Granted the Zafira is a few years away but it shows promise.

One thing GM does need to do is bring the 1.4L to 1.8L engines or the Corsa, Astra, Meriva and Combo they are put in to the U.S. market. The availability of world class small cars that get 40 to 50 MPG on gasoline is needed to complete the U.S. GM offerings in fuel efficient vehicles.

The 2007 Tahoe hybrid to be introduced early next year will realize a fuel saving of about 250 gallons a year over a conventional Tahoe (20 MPG vs 30 MPG) when a small hybrid only saves 125 gallons over a conventional sub-compact (40 MPG vs 60 MPG). This is only half the savings and that is giving today’s hybrids credit for 60 MPG that most do not get.

Different vehicles are better suited to one technology than another and fit different buyer needs better.

GM is the only manufacturer offering E-85, E-100, CNG, AFM, Direct Injection Gas Engines, Turbo Diesel and Hybrids in both basic low cost models and more capable two mode systems. It is also offers E85 and E100 capable hybrid models.

This diverse lineup of vehicles will have more impact on the environment and our use of oil than any other company. It is one that matches what real people living real lives in the real world need and will buy and use.

This is a fact that GM should be advertising and talking to the media about every day.

Hopefully GM will be able to find a media outlet that has the journalistic morals, integrity and an editorial staff of high enough quality to accurately report it. There are few mainstream media sources with this high of a standard. If the mainstream media and Yugo were the only companies that made cars; Yugo would be at the top of the quality charts.

GM needs to start a new campaign for B20 bio-diesel or better yet 100% bio-diesel and start to offer the world class turbo diesel models GM offers in Europe. These models get up to 60 MPG and with Bio-Diesel will make a larger impact than Hybrids.

GM should be the company given credit for a “relevant” lineup to address the current oil problems. It’s E-85 and E-100 programs are renewable energy sources and represent a permanent solution which is something that 10 million gasoline hybrids cannot do.

I know that GM and the American people can find solutions to our oil and environmental challenges. Any country that can create the technology to land a man on the moon in less than 10 years and has the agricultural capability to feed half the world can solve this problem.

GM is better at making excuses right now than making great cars. My last two car purchases were Oldsmobiles. Good cars, not great ones (by the reckoning of someone who also rents a lot of different cars). The probability that I'll purchase another GM car anyrime soon is less than even. Instead of telling the folks who are contributing to GM's shrinking market share that they're stupid, how about giving us what we want--first rate, solid, dependable, and yes, more fuel efficient cars. Stop whining; start winning.

Regretfully, much of what Friedman says is correct.

GM protestation that it is "working on" alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles and its correct statement that it already has some hybrid buses out there is quite irrelevant. The fuel cell vehicle, just like the famous AT&T "Picturephone" of the 70's that never materialized except at carefully staged simulations, is years if not decades away from happening. To hold this up as an example of how diligent GM is in pursuing alternative fuel is a kind of fraud. Nor will GM's statement that they have already a good number of cars meeting 30mpg EPA standards sway anyone who knows how meaningful those numbers are in the real world.
The real fuel efficent cars, the electrics and others, will, unfortunately, probably arise from Asia and then GM can put together some quick "response", inadequate as usual. GM is fooling few if anyone, they have had, just like the other Detroit automakers, over 30 years to get their alternative motor and fuel act together and they have done little or nothing,
with the exception of the disasterous Buick diesel passenger car of the early 80's. Why should we expect anything to change now?

I noticed that Friedman published a follow-up rant in the NYT. In it, he says:
"Pardon me if – at a time when China is imposing higher mileage standards than America – I don't want to join the many congressmen and senators in drinking GM's Kool-Aid and not demanding that it become the most fuel-efficient automaker in the world"

Isn't Friedman aware that Toyota is equally opposed to fuel economy standards in the US, and lobbies based on their position on this? If Friedman had gone to:
http://www.autoalliance.org/fuel/cafe101_position.php
he would see that the official position of Auto Alliance (and organization Toyota belongs to) is that:
"....Automakers oppose legislative increases in fuel economy standards.
"

So, opposition to fuel economy standards isn't "GM-Kool Aid". Toyota lobbies equally vehemently against CAFE standards.

In Friedman's followup article he says:
"Yes, Toyota makes trucks and SUVs, just like GM. I am not against either. "

This is ironic, because he's just blasted GM for building SUVs. Sorry, Tom, you can't have it both ways.

He goes on to say:
"GM says its full-size SUVs get better mileage than Toyota 's. All I know is that Consumer Reports rates all size SUVs for fuel efficiency, reliability and performance. Toyota and Honda SUVs are its top picks in every size category. "

Why doesn't Tom Friedman take a few minutes to go to Edmunds and see for himself that GM is correct in saying that it's large SUVs get better mileage than Toyota's.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=GQwByQW1ZpG4Dyl5WQxFZCJmNcpPh4cxNGT5LSnGpTc1LLF1GJHF!1570994608?basestyleid=100682945&styleid=100626123&styleid=100530843&styleid=100624711&styleid=100578016&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=specs

It's easy to do, and he would have quickly seen that the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe gets 15/21 city/hwy mpg while the 2006 Toyota Sequoia gets 15/17 city/hwy mpg. Do your research T Friedman

It's about time that someone took on the automotive industry, including GM, to bring discussion for a "real" energy policy in this country.

GM has done its part to perpetuate our energy wastefulness. Certainly the automakers have fought, tooth and nail, fuel economy and emmissions standards for decades. Their lobbying in this regard qualifies as vote buying in my book. And, it has contributed to their downfall in the face of competition from foreign makers of more efficient vehicles.

While you can argue that this is just capitalism and competition at work, there is more at stake here. C'mon and admit it folks - we're now in an era where we are exchanging blood for oil. And the costs - in terms of dollars and also oil - to protect our "interests" in the Mideast are staggering. What if we had instead invested the hundreds of billions in Iraq in hybrid vehicles, solar and wind, insulation, public transportation and other things that could truly lead us toward energy independence.

As far as the NY Times goes, they are free to print or edit anything they want. GM can always find other venues to get their message out. Friedman has a pretty good take on things and although GM was singled out his thoughts ring true to this American. Someone's got to challenge the status quo or it will only get worse.....

Tom Friedman is an ideologue with an agenda that has zero basis in facts. He makes no sense at all -- first he argues that GM deserves to be put out of business because it sells SUVs. Then he says he has nothing against SUVs per say -- only how much gas they use; except almost in the next sentence he says even though GM’s SUVs get better mileage than Toyota's SUVs he likes Toyota’s better because Consumer Reports says they like them better. --- What? His logic is so twisted I assume he a blinded ideologue or stupid. Check these mileage comparisons yourself and you will see that GM beats Toyota on many models.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

Of course, to Friedman that doesn’t matter, what matters is that you buy what he thinks you should buy and we will better for it. I just wonder why Friedman hates GM so bad that he would try to destroy them. GM has paid more mortgages, put more kids through college, and generally made life better for millions of people. More so than any US company in history, yet TF hates them enough to writes slanted propaganda to encourage people to not buy their products. As the son of a GM employee I thank my lucky stars every day for the paycheck (and dividends) my dad earned working for GM. The only thing I can figure is that Friedman must have some kids living in Tokyo City he needs to help support.

Dear Brian Akre of GM:

Thanks for your thorough posting of your NY Times
letter incident.

1) That almost all editors of almost all publications are annoying (rightly and wrongly) to almost all writers is not reason to not write. For you to have replaced "rubbish" with "not so" would have affected the net effect of your letter about 0.5% as much as not publishing the letter.

I would hope that these are not the kinds of principles that run your company. If the world of writers stood with you we would see much less in print.

2) Meanwhile, your defense of GM's crimes against the environment as being slightly less than those of Toyota with regard to truck mileage is absurd. Toyota may have a slightly better profile of good-mileage cars, but they are nearly as complicit as GM in their promotion of "performance" as meaning "sense of power behind the wheel" instead of as efficient low-impact effective transportation. To say GM is not worse than Toyata in all regards is not saying much. Toyota and GM could both do oh so much more to lead the world to less burning of Carbon.

NYTimes? Tom Friedman? What? Who?

After commiserating a little about your tribulations with NYTimes editors, (Hey - you got the letter published! None of my 50 attempts ever succeeded!), I will go down to my garage and gently caress my '96 Suburban. Think I'll even spring $125 to fill up the tank and take it out for a drive this afternoon.

We simply need better fuel economy standards. You say that building Hummers dictates the market; I say GM's dearth of corporate responsibility contributes to long-term problems economomically, politically and ecologically.

And I also say that each person - including you, Mr. Akre - in the hierarchy of GM Corporate - is in part responsible.

You have a great company with a great history. Please live up to that standard and make your impact on the world and the nation an equal priority with your profits.

Good for the New York Times. They're not any under obligation to devote 500 words to every corporation that wants to rebut an article it doesn't like.

And this notion that they're somehow failing to be "fair and balanced" is a total red herring. Friedman's piece appeared on the op-ed page. It's self-evidently an opinion. Since when do any news organizations run balanced opinion pieces taking both sides of every issue they comment on?

I thought blogs were supposed to foster dialog. Evidently GM's is meant to be a showcase for self-pity.

Advice to GM:

Don't yell back at Friedman - just as I wouldn't yell back at Coulter. For an example of how to make an effective argument in the lion's den, *watch* Noam Chomsky make his points against the military at West Point (BookTV).

Don't try to fool NYTimes readers with an argument like the first one in your published rebuttal. (Stanley Shih talks about this above.) Those readers are smart.

Do something *significant* about gas efficiency.

Bravo, GM.

Fortitudine Vincimus
(By endurance we will conquer)

Be a big boy (or company).

Friedman accurately pointed out that GM doesn't SELL as many fuel efficient vehicles as your competitors and that GM has a long way to go before it can claim its old glory again.

He said some meanie things.

So what are you going to do about it? Sorry not everyone likes the way you do business. Making a mountain out of molehill does only the Times the favor of more publicity.

Perhaps you should focus more attention on your products as opposed to your PR. Making cars Americans want to buy seems a better strategy than bribing them with rebates and cheap gas. I suspect that you wouldn't have to worry about the NY Times or their columnists if you actually showed some sign of success.

Well, like they say, never start a public fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. And by the way, your marketing of the Chevy Cobalt is unfair to such a great little car. My blog has more on GM...

The New York Times? I think I heard of them once. Do they make clocks? Maybe watches?

I'll have to watch for them in the news, which I mainly get from the New York Sun.

The Saturn convertible commercial is really good. Keep putting that one up. I would buy it, but the Saturn dealership near me just closed. I guess a new GMC is as close as I'm going to get!

"Who Killed the Electric Car"?

I have just learned of the new documentary from Sony Classic Pictures, "Who Killed the Electric Car". To my complete astonishment, it seems that GM had an outstandingly engineered electric car in the mid 1990's but they carefully arranged for it to flop,
and, equally astonishing, recovered all of the the test cars and destroyed them (!!), apparently fearing impact on their traditional car lines. Mel Gibson was among the drivers and enthusiastic supporters of this car.
I am going to watch this documentary at the earliest opportunity.

Thanks
Jim

I have read all the comments about Friedman's stuff, but putting all your responses in the internet is not getting it to all the people. Loyal GM folks like myself, who was Chief Pilot of GMATS for many years read your blogs in the GM internet, but what happens to the rest who do not have computers. Put it in all the local papers so all can see what is going on. Thx Doug Knapp

fyi, GM's upped the ante with online ads directing people to their blog "to get the facts". Seen recently on WaPo and ABCnews --

http://adverlicio.us/general_motors_gm_get_the_facts_728x90

Check it out ... thoughts? Seems like a dangerous game of chicken to me.

When gas was $20 a barrel, Toyota was perfecting gas/electric hybrids and opening plants in the US. GM was perfecting the Hummer and offshoring as much of its business as possible. Rather than trying to score a PR victory over a petty issue like a letter to the editor, GM should learn from its long, long, long list of missteps.

Mr. Akre,
Thank you for taking a stand against the New York Times. They often print inappropriate and false information. It seems they rarely have to pay the consequences or retract these false statements.

The article from Tom Friedman is simply another one of his dialogues which is discounted by the majority of the 'informed' and 'free thinking' segment of the audience. Friedman is not someone around whom conversation stops when he utters something.

The point is that GM should view this article in the context of the particular 'Friedman style' of writing. That is to say, its a desultary, hugely generalized piece, packed with ambiguity and innuendo. The intent of such imaginitive rubbish is designed to promote the appearance of knowledge, whilst deftly leaving the piece with enough ambiguity and subjection, that it provides him an extremely slippery protective shield from pesky issues like the 'facts', or heaven forbid the actual reality on the ground.

Therefore, if you wish to address the fantasies printed in this particular column, you have to adopt the same 'desultary', style with the exception that you relate the true facts around the issues he raises. Your closing or summary paragraphs would be the appropriate place to point out the differences of fact, resultant from the poor quality and inaccuracies of his piece.

Intelligent readers can tell full well when they are simply reading the (rather simplistic and inaccurate) personal ramblings of an otherwise relatively unremarkable wannabe.

Have faith, it is more probable than not, that the majority of readers are intelligent free thinkers, who were very quickly able see through the inaccuracies and "imaginitive" statements peddled.

VirtualVoice

Maybe GM is pushing gas guzzlers, regardless of need. That certainly isn't good for us.

Lucky you that you can put up a website AND get it on Google's first page complaining that the Times won't print a letter almost as long as Friedman's column.

My answer to you is BRRRRRRRRRRR!

I watched Tom Friedman on last Sunday's Meet the Press and was quite impressed. He seemed knowledgeable and well spoken. When I typed in his name on the internet to read more of what he had to say, I was SHOCKED to learn that he is a member of the top 100 wealthiest families in the world. With this wealth comes incredible privilege, as seen in the bravado of the Bush family. I'm not surprised that he has bashed GM, and GM cannot get their response published. The Privileged really care about lining the pockets of their crones. I believe that those of us in America who are not buying American cars are not supporting the economy that we have been enjoying for quite sometime. The Auto Industry is crucial to the American middle class, and we are in for some really tough times if the American public does not wise up and start buying "American". I realize that many parts are purchased off shore, however, the majority of jobs are here. We need to keep them here.

A Michigan Mfg Rep who has had 7 American Factories Close in the last 3 years.

The NY Times is steadily losing its marketshare, and I don't think they know why. Forget the abuse, enjoy their demise.

Wow- I didn't see Friedman's article until you flacks made this post and it go picked up by Opinion Journal. While I generally DISAGREE with most of Friedman's views (a $3.50 gas floor would be ruinous for the economy, as nice as it sounds in print!) I have to hand it to him: he nailed GM on this one.

I also saw your bold 490-word response. Let me just point out that you got your a** handed to you- and it wasn't because of a failure to include the word "rubbish" in there. Your $1.99 rebate policy speaks for itsef: if Toyota is as or more dependent for its revenues on ineffecient vehicles, why is it not offering similar incentives? Will the incentive get someone looking for a $15K sedan to by an SUV? No. But the idea is for thousands of people to be able to rationalize buying these ineffecient vehicles- without consequence for any factor outside price. Factors like national security or the environment.

What I find most amazing is that I, and I'm assuming many many others, would have completely missed this post were it not for a PR guy trying to impress his bosses. In trying to seem adamant and innovative in towi