Irresponsible Media and the Toyota Prius Problem

Throughout 2009-10, the public was inundated with media reports of the failings of the Toyota product line; particularly, the Toyota Prius. As individuals came forward to claim problems with random and uncontrolled acceleration of these vehicles, all media piled on to the automaker, reporting specific incidents where the drivers had applied the brakes, to no avail. Television carried footage of a driver being guided by the police to decelerate, without success.
As Internet media, television, radio and print media carried article upon article of failed software systems in this hybrid, almost none of those responsible journalists and reporters offered the distinct possibility that the drivers were at fault, and not the vehicle’s advanced programming.
Toyota claimed that many of these reports were not valid, and that others were the consequence of sticky gas pedals and floor mat problems. The media largely ignored this. When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that they could not replicate some of this issues on the specific vehicles that the owners had claimed to have occurred, the media gave scant coverage. The story, it appeared, was much better, embellished and unsubstantiated.
The next phase of irresponsibility occurred when the US Congress summoned the head of Toyota to testify regarding the problems, and, instead of waiting for concrete evidence of problems, set about to publicly chastise the auto giant for its problems. In fairness to Congress, much of its public scolding focused on the delays in reporting problems of which Toyota was aware. That, at least, was valid. But senators and congresspersons alike displayed myopic gang mentality by making incorrect assumptions of the cause, even though their own government agency had cautioned against irrational and premature conclusions,
Throughout the spring and summer of 2010, media reports continued to flow – no, gush – on Toyota’s software problems, even though in August the NHTSA reported to Congress that 35 of 58 incidents that they had analysed to date showed no software flaw. At the height of the feeding frenzy of irresponsible journalism, a survey of 40 various media found 149 articles denigrating Toyota for its problems, insinuating that they were aware of a software problem or ignoring Toyota and NHTSA reports that there was not a software issue.
In February, 2011, the final report on the Toyota software failures came in. It agreed with Toyota’s internal examinations, and found absolutely no evidence of software failure relating to the sudden acceleration issue. With 11 million vehicles recalled by Toyota during the frenzy to crucify it, and obvious damage to Toyota’s reputation for reliability, one would assume that a plethora of news articles on the findings would have followed the release of the report. Instead, in the following week, an independent survey of a similar 40 media sources found only 9 articles or items reporting on this conclusive discovery.
It would appear that each of these responsible reporting bodies would have found it both morally and journalistically imperative to contribute to a public awareness effort that mitigated the damage of inaccurate, incorrect and irresponsible journalism. It would appear, though, that the requisite truth and responsibility in dealing with the public that the media demands of others does not extend inward. It is unfortunate that “free speech” allows us to say what we want, but does not require us to amend what we later find to be wrong. Perhaps, free speech needs to be redefined to be the freedom to speak accurately and fully, not in a way that serves our own purposes.