New York Times leaves out the juiciest bit

GM and Chrysler execs today defended their selection processes for deciding which of their dealers to close –  objective decisions, they insist, based on dealership location and profitability, among other factors.

Unsurprisingly, owners of dealerships currently on the chopping block have their own take.

Peter Lopez, who owns Chrysler and G.M. dealerships in Spencer, W.Va., and Russell Whatley, who has a Chrysler dealership in Mineral Wells, Tex., said they paid the auto companies for vehicles and parts, as well as other fixed costs, like the right to hang the manufacturer’s sign. Mr. Lopez saidhis dealerships produced roughly 15 percent of his town’s tax revenue and that he even bought additional Chrysler vehicles earlier this year, at the company’s insistence, to help it through the recent downturn. And Mr. Whatley said that he grossed almost $450,000 a month.

But both have been told their Chrysler dealerships will be closed. Mr. Lopez’s G.M. franchise will close next year.

“To be arbitrarily closed, with no compensation, is wasteful and devastating,” Mr. Whatley said.

via Automakers Defend Plans to Trim Dealerships – NYTimes.com.

Of course, the missing subtext is the juiciest bit: Accusations of arbitrariness notwithstanding, fellow True/Slant contributor Matt Taibbi pointed out in a post a few days ago that rumors of political conspiracy are dogging perception as well.

It seems that there has been a lot of grumbling surrounding the closure of certain car dealerships in the the Chrysler wind-down. The company didn’t want to shut down some 25% of its dealerships, but the President’s Automotive Task Force insisted. And once the shutdowns commenced, rumors began to circulate that there were more forced closures of dealerships who contributed heavily to Republican candidates last year than dealerships who gave to Obama or Hillary Clinton.

via Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – True/Slant.

Taibbi says he figures it’s bullshit. I figure it probably is, too, even though the evidence Taibbi’s source offers is at least provocative. But when a rumor exists and gains currency in the minds of enough people, it becomes a fact of a different kind. It becomes context –  a part of the counter-current against which GM and Chrysler are trying to guide their respective ships.

There’s no way Times reporters couldn’t know about the theory, conspiratorial as it may be, and I’m not sure how giving voice to one unverifiable interpretation (“the decisions were arbitrary”) is any different than another (“it’s a political conspiracy”). Perhaps Taibbi’s piece simply had me primed to read this article a certain way. But I can’t be the only one. There are ways to address a rumor’s existence without saying anything about the truth of it. I’m surprised the Times left it out.

Related articles by Zemanta

• GM gives tough love to its dealers (money.cnn.com)
• US factory orders increase in May (news.bbc.co.uk)