Guest Josh

Outlook Story Removed

59 posts in this topic

Guest Josh   
Guest Josh

Outlook Story Removed


As many have guessed and have figured out the Saturn Outlook story that C&G ran has been pulled citing GM’s request. We strive to provide accurate and informative discussion regarding General Motors. Is the story true? Time will tell, however remember to stick with us for your latest in news and information.

We are GM enthusiasts and look forward to the GMNA restructuring plan Rick Wagoner has presented.

Excuse me while I hop in my 2006 Pontiac Solstice that is helping GM's turn around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbo200    6

Since so many people seem to pay attention to the lead news bit and not the responding posts, why not post a retraction? The headline you last gave was "Shelved", there isn't an idiot out there that could misinterpret that. Then you went on to say it was delayed and could be canceled in the near term. The effects of sensationalistic, irresponsible journalism are exactly what happened to the last thread. Why don't you post a real retraction and say it hasn't been canceled? Anywho, I'm glad you removed it, since it promotes the exact thing I am talking about----misguided opinions led by sensationalistic journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Josh   
Guest Josh

Since so many people seem to pay attention to the lead news bit and not the responding posts, why not post a retraction? The headline you last gave was "Shelved", there isn't an idiot out there that could misinterpret that. Then you went on to say it was delayed and could be canceled in the near term. The effects of sensationalistic, irresponsible journalism are exactly what happened to the last thread. Why don't you post a real retraction and say it hasn't been canceled? Anywho, I'm glad you removed it, since it promotes the exact thing I am talking about----misguided opinions led by sensationalistic journalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did as I was asked by GM as I always do and will continue to do so. You can call it whatever you'd like on my end, we've removed posts that were absolutely legitimate and true, yet removed because the information GM did not want out at that certain moment.

I stand by my decisions and actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterJ    0

I did as I was asked by GM as I always do and will continue to do so. You can call it whatever you'd like on my end, we've removed posts that were absolutely legitimate and true, yet removed because the information GM did not want out at that certain moment.

I stand by my decisions and actions.

Josh, I'd think long and hard about standing by your decisions and actions today if I were you. Because frankly this has been a very bad day for this web-site and you've got a serious credibility/maturity gap to make up. Even your retraction is lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boblutzfan    0

Your retraction is hard to find for the casual user. Why not post the retraction on the home page and replace the link that is right below the Outlook picture.

You may have deactivated the link and posted a retraction - but you still aren't being forthright. It is like running a false story on the front page and then posting a retraction in small print burried under the classifieds the next day.

It is immature and lacking in character. Post the retraction on your homepage.

Today you lost more fans to GMI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sciguy_0504    0

I fail to see how Josh is at fault for what happened. It was news and it was posted. People jumped to conclusions, myself included, and allowed his story to become "sensationalistic." Personally, I want to know if a new vehicle program is delayed or cancelled and what reasons GM may have for doing such a thing.

If anything, the readers who responded to the news are at fault because we overreacted. You cannot blame Josh for posting the news and sure as hell cannot blame him for how his fellow C&G members reacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boblutzfan    0

I fail to see how Josh is at fault for what happened.  It was news and it was posted.  People jumped to conclusions, myself included, and allowed his story to become "sensationalistic."  Personally, I want to know if a new vehicle program is delayed or cancelled and what reasons GM may have for doing such a thing.

If anything, the readers who responded to the news are at fault because we overreacted.  You cannot blame Josh for posting the news and sure as hell cannot blame him for how his fellow C&G members reacted.

At the top of the homepage it said "Outlook Shelved". If Josh wanted to state the facts plainly then his headline should have read "Outlook delayed two months" There is a huge difference in the two titles. While in the meat of the article Josh went on to further elaborate his "shelved" title - clearly he led people to assume something that was simply not true.

This is sensationalistic journalism. I will read the Star for crap like that. It WAS NOT NEWS!!! What he said was an editorial. There is a HUGE difference. Also, why doesn't Josh post the retraction on the homepage? That would be the right thing to do. If you blast some un truth on the home page - that is the place the retraction should be placed.

Edited by boblutzfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, this isn't a retraction in the traditional sense. It's not like he found out the story was false and pulled it. GM asked him to pull it. No where has he said that the story was pulled because it was false.

And BTW "Shelved" doesn't exactly mean cancelled. When I hear shelved I think put on hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boblutzfan    0

First of all, this isn't a retraction in the traditional sense. It's not like he found out the story was false and pulled it. GM asked him to pull it. No where has he said that the story was pulled because it was false.

And BTW "Shelved" doesn't exactly mean cancelled. When I hear shelved I think put on hold.

The Zeta program was shelved - early on in its development. The Outlook introduction was delayed by two months. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Variance    0

At the top of the homepage it said  "Outlook Shelved".  If Josh wanted to state the facts plainly then his headline should have read "Outlook delayed two months"  There is a huge difference in the two titles.  While in the meat of the article Josh went on to further elaborate his "shelved" title - clearly he led people to assume something that was simply not true.

This is sensationalistic journalism.  I will read the Star for crap like that.  It WAS NOT NEWS!!!  What he said was an editorial.  There is a HUGE difference.  Also, why doesn't Josh post the retraction on the homepage?  That would be the right thing to do.  If you blast some un truth on the home page - that is the place the retraction should be placed.

So your beef is the use of the word "shelved"? "Shelved" means something is postponed; I don't see what was misleading in the title.

Even if you had a point (which you don't, IMO) even you say the details were elaborated on in the article. People have no one to blame but themselves if they don't take the time to read something in full before sounding off.

Complaining about the semantics of the title is weak (especially when you're wrong).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boblutzfan    0

So your beef is the use of the word "shelved"? "Shelved" means something is postponed; I don't see what was misleading in the title.

Even if you had a point (which you don't, IMO) even you say the details were elaborated on in the article. People have no one to blame but themselves if they don't take the time to read something in full before sounding off.

Complaining about the semantics of the title is weak (especially when you're wrong).

So Josh, why don't you place your retraction on the home page to tell people what happened? It would help your and the sites credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Josh, why don't you place your retraction on the home page to tell people what happened?  It would help your and the sites credibility.

Are you F-ing blind it's not a retraction. Read the F-ing post. It was removed at GMs request. Not Removed because it was wrong. Until he says he removed it because it was wrong I suggest you stop bitching. Atleast until you find out if it is indeed untrue. Which odds are you have no way of doing. :banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Variance    0

So Josh, why don't you place your retraction on the home page to tell people what happened?  It would help your and the sites credibility.

Ummm...you might want to check my name again... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterJ    0

I don't know what's more lame. The red herring of an article or the people lining up to make excuses for it. Clearly the whole tone and tenor of both the article and the discussion which ensued for four pages created the impression that the Outlook was in serious jeapordy. And Josh took absolutely zero responsibility for putting that conversation back on track until he was told to by GM...or perhaps he just realized what an embarassment this had become for him, since we're all about speculation here. If you can't see that for cheap sensationalism then you have no sense of judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boblutzfan    0

I don't know what's more lame. The red herring of an article or the people lining up to make excuses for it.    Clearly the whole tone and tenor of both the article and the discussion which ensued for four pages created the impression that the Outlook was in serious jeapordy.    And Josh took absolutely zero responsibility for putting that conversation back on track until he was told to by GM...or perhaps he just realized what an embarassment this had become for him, since we're all about speculation here. If you can't see that for cheap sensationalism then you have no sense of judgement.

Thank you. If Josh knew it was just a two month delay until production he sure didn't do anything to keep the coversation from getting out of hand with doomsday predictions.

Any my comment was written to Josh earlier about the retraction...not to Variance since it was Josh who started this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAybe he should have put the conversation back on track but, believe me (I know him personally) he would not have posted the article if he had any doubt it was true.

Edited by ChrisPauwels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud GMInsideNews for not falling into the trap of slapping this story on their front page.  AH-HA also handled this well on his webpage.

Whatever, you must be dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Variance    0

I don't know what's more lame. The red herring of an article or the people lining up to make excuses for it.    Clearly the whole tone and tenor of both the article and the discussion which ensued for four pages created the impression that the Outlook was in serious jeapordy.    And Josh took absolutely zero responsibility for putting that conversation back on track until he was told to by GM...or perhaps he just realized what an embarassment this had become for him, since we're all about speculation here. If you can't see that for cheap sensationalism then you have no sense of judgement.

The tone of article? All the article said was the Outlook had been put on hold for a retooling. And how is Josh responsible for how other people interpreted the article? You think he's here every moment to clarify every single thing? Give me a break.

A sensationlist tone would be if Josh knew the Outlook was't being cancelled and put forth the notion that it was. If you had read the article, you could see that was plainly not the case. You think he intentionally wanted to work people up and getting people pissed off at GM? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterJ    0

The tone of article? All the article said was the Outlook had been put on hold for a retooling. And how is Josh responsible for how other people interpreted the article? You think he's here every moment to clarify every single thing? Give me a break.

A sensationlist tone would be if Josh knew the Outlook was't being cancelled and put forth the notion that it was. If you had read the article, you could see that was plainly not the case. You think he intentionally wanted to work people up and getting people pissed off at GM? Please.

Well the article and thread are gone now so there's no way to refute your take objectively, whether the interest is there or not. But I stand 100% by everything I've said in this thread. And there are many ways to be sensationalist. Again, if you can't see that then you're simply more interested in being right than in being accurate.

Edited by PeterJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sciguy_0504    0

You are right. It should be moved to the front page so everyone is able to see how blown out of proportion it has become.

"Sensationalist" headlines are everywhere, just pick up your local newspaper or watch the news. Once again, Josh did not do anything wrong. If he wanted to make people believe the Outlook was cancelled he would have put the word in the damn title and posted a retraction. None of the administrators are responsible for how C&G members interept news, articles, opinions, photos, etc. After I read the article and then proceeded to read almost every comment that followed it, I believed the Outlook was cancelled because I put the word in my post. After reading one article and then the opinions of 50 people, I forgot what the original article said. It was my fault.

If you are so hyped on GMI, why not spend more time there? Perhaps because they do not have the information C&G admin and members are privy to? Quit fooling yourself, the inside news is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.