There’s a debate revving up across the pond between several U.K.-based publications and the producers of BBC-owned Top Gear, a show for automotive diehards that’s become something of a phenomenon.
Seen by over 350 million viewers across 170 countries, the hit series follows the adventures of its hosts—Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May—and their various driving exploits, track testing everything from blue collar workhorses like the Volkswagen Golf to engineering pinnacles like the pavement incinerating Bugatti Veyron.
For the most part, the show is an enjoyable cross of gamesmanship and schoolboy jockeying. The hosts’ natural chemistry translates handily into something magnetic for its audience, and only gets reinforced as they get behind the wheels of roaring V12 engines.
Hanging over the debate is as nebulous an issue as there was; one which, in many ways, asks us to reconsider the lines between entertainment and reporting. The controversy in question stems from a recent episode that was heavily panned by Ben Webster of The Times (unfortunately the article is behind a paywall).
During the show, hosts Jeremy Clarkson and James May set course on a 60-mile journey in an electric vehicle, the Nissan LEAF. Before they could conclude their journey, however, the vehicle apparently runs out of juice, prompting its drivers to declare that “electric cars are not the future.”
But here’s where the controversy comes in. The Guardian reports:
But it wasn’t unexpected: Nissan has a monitoring device in the car which transmits information on the state of the battery. This shows that, while the company delivered the car to Top Gear fully charged, the programme-makers ran the battery down before Clarkson and May set off, until only 40% of the charge was left. Moreover, they must have known this, as the electronic display tells the driver how many miles’ worth of electricity they have, and the sat-nav tells them if they don’t have enough charge to reach their destination. In this case it told them – before they set out on their 60-mile journey – that they had 30 miles’ worth of electricity. But, as Ben Webster of the Times reported earlier this week, “at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip.”
It gets worse. As Webster points out, in order to stage a breakdown in Lincoln, “it appeared that the Leaf was driven in loops for more than 10 miles in Lincoln until the battery was flat.”
Top Gear has since responded to the allegations, claiming, “We never, at any point in the film, said that we were testing the range claims of the vehicles, nor did we say that the vehicles wouldn’t achieve their claimed range.” However, this wouldn’t be the first time the show’s been criticized for undermining the potency of electric vehicles, as a recent suit from Tesla (who claim their battery life was misrepresented) would seem to demonstrate.
The question being posed is this: Should the BBC uphold its crown jewel to the same accuracy as its other publications? It’s a question likely at the heart of any media faction, entertainment or otherwise.
jsabo on August 7th, 2017 at 03:29 UTC »
The problem with the "well, it's not journalism" defense is that if they tell me that a car has 650bhp, does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, or costs $1.23M, I'm going to believe them.
If they show that the car made it around their track in 1:43, and was faster than all but 7 other vehicles they tested, I'm going to believe them.
When they tell me that a McClaren P1 gets such and such miles per gallon, and that the tank has this much or little capacity, I'm going to believe them.
In short, if they provide me with a concrete technical fact about a vehicle, I'm going to believe that it's accurate.
But with the electric cars, they crossed a line. They went from exaggeration, such as showing that one car out of three on a road trip had to fuel up more often, to straight out lying about range capacity.
We have no basis from them to believe that this was a joke-- they never once said "Man, Car B can only go half as far as Car A before it needs to fuel up again-- because we only fill the tank half way each time we stop."
They can claim it wasn't a range test all they want, but if the point of the film was to show that they couldn't make it from A to B in one shot, I think that most reasonable people would say that was the point of the clip.
And to do that after intentionally draining half the capacity is like showing that a car is bad at drag racing by leaving the emergency brake on.
I'm just glad that the new crew is at least giving the cars a fair shot.
Doctor0000 on August 6th, 2017 at 23:34 UTC »
I recall some journalist here writing a really bitter article and he either wound up suing Tesla or vice versa, because he ran the car out of charge.
I can't help but wonder if a journalist had done this with a model T all those years ago, if he'd have gotten any reaction.
"The abomination supplied to me by Henry Ford and his infernal motor works promptly halted halfway through my journey. On the side of the highway it sat, steadfast for a fortnight and staunchly refused to graze. Never have I seen so callous, bullheaded and ignorant an animal since last I looked in the mirror"
motionpassed on August 6th, 2017 at 23:26 UTC »
Well, that sounds blatantly dishonest. No wonder they're releasing statements that try to limit their liability on a technicality "We never, at any point in the film, said that we were testing the range claims of the vehicles”