Outlook Story Removed

[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.

[turbo200]

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.

[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.

[PeterJ]

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.

[boblutzfan]

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.

[sciguy_0504]

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.

[boblutzfan]

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 February 17, 2006 by boblutzfan

[ChrisPauwels]

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.

[boblutzfan]

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.

[ChrisPauwels]

Shelved for 1 month or 1 year is still shelved.

[Variance]

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).

[boblutzfan]

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.

[ChrisPauwels]

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.

[Variance]

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...

[PeterJ]

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.

[boblutzfan]

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.

[ChrisPauwels]

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 February 17, 2006 by ChrisPauwels

[boblutzfan]

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.

[ChrisPauwels]

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.

[Variance]

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.

[PeterJ]

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 February 17, 2006 by PeterJ

[V6powerr]

Thanks Josh for everything that GM is up to, Keep it coming!

[Cadillacfan]

I think this should be moved to the front page just so everyone knows what's going on.

[boblutzfan]

I think this should be moved to the front page just so everyone knows what's going on.

Agreed.

[sciguy_0504]

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.

[97regalGS]

You think he intentionally wanted to work people up and getting people pissed off at GM? Please.

Well, he's done it before to get a reaction.

[haypops]

Whatever, you must be dense.

Was it Cartman that said "I'm not dense, I'm buff." Perhaps I prefer "I'm not dense, I'm big boned." Then again there is "I'm not dense, I've got a slow thyroid." Is a thyroid like a Yugo?

Edited February 17, 2006 by haypops

[regfootball]

and a reaction it got. that's the most uproar I've seen since partaking in C/G........

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Well, he's done it before to get a reaction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? I've been here since December '04 (on the old forums) and I can't remember anything like that.

Anyhow, Josh is not a perfict person, same goes for each and everyone of us, and a human being will make a mistake, if its intentional or not. This is just an example of the rule.

Edited February 18, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[4gm]

I'm not close to anyone inside the car biz, but is "shelved" the same as "delayed"? Just wondering. I want to get the lingo down.

[Variance]

I'm not close to anyone inside the car biz, but is "shelved" the same as "delayed"?  Just wondering.  I want to get the lingo down.

Pretty much. It just means it's put on hold for a period of time. Although, "delayed" can suggest an unforseen problem more than "shelved".

[Guest Josh]

People can call it what they want, but the fact remains, I always have and always will stand by my decisions and actions.

If people want to think I hate General Motors more power to them. I'm 22, I come from a UAW family and hope to work at the company one day in some form regardless of what the Internet does to slow or accelerate that.

Furthermore, I own & drive a 2006 Pontiac Solstice that carries a montly payment of $440, car insurance that is $200 and a 1999 Grand Am that is my secondary car. My first car ever purcahsed was a 1993 Grand Am GT.

So, for people say that I jumped the gun, or I said or did something wrong, that's absolutely incorrect. This web-site created by Walt was created to cover GM news and allow enthusiasts a place to DISCUSS information.

Information that is out there, information that is easily accessible because of GM's own leaks. I don't reveal information, but we're literally sitting on information that analysts have no clue about that we obtained legally through GM's own faults.

Furthermore, this web-site has been nothing but free publicity to General Motors. All I've ever asked for was an ear for when instances like this arise.

Now, you are all free to take my comments any which way you would like to do. The fact remains this. I ran with a story that I feel was in good faith due to industry sources. General Motors asked that I remove it, which I obliged and we have done a thousand and one times before and will continue to do so as long as GM comes a calling.

My words were said and in no way did I say the vehicle was cancelled, none at all. Never ONCE said the Outlook was cancelled right now. Nobody can say otherwise because I know what I said.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

^ Fair enough.

[Camino LS6]

Wow! I am AFK for a few hours and all hell breaks loose! Trust me on this one folks: If Josh posts it as news, it comes from a legit source - period. Now, what that source's agenda might be we can't know, but to attack Josh for giving us all precisely what we are here for is absurd. As Josh and others have said, we always remove images or information when the request comes from GM itself - that's just C&G policy. The fact that the article was removed has NOTHING to do with its veracity. Got it?

And just who is this Peter person anyway?

[Guest Josh]

OK, my two cents!  I've had it!  Want to scoop everyone!  You've been had Josh!  I got some lameass doc that some unknown yahoo sent me too about Outtlook cancelled, but guess what it's all BULL&#036;h&#33;!  Sitting on info, it's stolen, that's right stolen information from the GM Supply Power website.  Hole or no hole, it was not and is still not your information to take and post at your discretion.  Look familar: 

Why don't you, Cspec and others, yes GM knows about you Cspec, and talk to them about there little leak issue.  I'm sure they'd love to chat with you for a while.  What, you're some high and mighty with all top secret stuff, guess what, you still have no clue what goes on in this industry and how it works.  It's people man, and you've managed to piss off quite a few and I'm not talking people on the board.  You've caused GM more harm than good over the past few months with you antics and I'm sure they'd love to this this site disappear.  A rival automaker had all the docs and handed them back over the GM and an investigation has been ongoing since.  Now, you just add icing on the cake with this Outlook fiasco!  Shelved, cancelled, whatever!  You played it off as though it were dead, that's the plain old truth.  Except this time it bit you square in the ASS!  I'm sure GM wants to pat you on the back for you're hard work for them.  If you love GM so much, I'd hate to see what you do to people you hate.

AH-HA out!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unbelievable.

[Achelous]

I knew this story was fishy. Josh, I think you probably got sucked in to this whole maelstrom a bit, but I guess this'll probably teach us all a lesson about jumping to conclusions. On the upside, I'm looking forward to the Outlook!!!

[HUMVEE]

WOW, I'm usually a lurker but occasionally will post something as I did with the original thread. I can't go back and re-read what I missed, but I too read the thread as GM was cancelling the Outlook. I thought maybe they were going to give it to Chevy or something. I'm sure I made the mistake in the way I read the post. In any case if I could offer my .02, Josh, if you're going to post something like that and it's not a link or press release, but your own understanding of a source ect., just be clear about what's going on. I never saw anywhere where it was delayed by two months ect. Again probably my mistake, but it would've been helpful if the message was clearer. Also, when I came back today to check on the latest I'm like, "what happened to this story?" Front page news shouldn't just dissappear like that with no explaination regardless of who is at fault. Now this thread is buried in the Saturn news. Maybe that's what GM wants, but I think it's a disservice to your members to not have some explaination, link, SOMETHING to all of your readers who were so upset yesterday. Thanks

[HUMVEE]

Did I misread this? This is from Autoblog:

Saturn Outlook shelved?

Posted Feb 17th 2006 8:00AM by John Neff

Filed under: Minivans/MPVs

A post in the Cheers & Gears forums is claiming that GM is “rethinking” the Saturn Outlook and may cancel the upcoming crossover in a few weeks. This would happen just weeks before its debut at the New York Auto Show and mere months before the Lambda-based model is scheduled to go on sale.

Cheers & Gears claims only that this news comes from “industry sources”, which has us wondering where these sources are getting their info. The Outlook would share its Lambda platform with the Buick Enclave (the concept of which is to die for), as well as the GMC Acadia, so it’s curious GM would scuttle one unless an issue with insufficient production capacity is involved. Normally, however, automakers want to produce as many vehicles on a particular platform as possible, so this news has us scratching our heads.

Likewise, crossover vehicles, or CUVs, are the next big thing, like green ketchup or Ashlee Simpson (sign here if you’d prefer her publicly silenced forever), so why would the General deprive Saturn of what’s sure to be a decent seller in an emerging segment?

[enzl]

WOW, I'm usually a lurker but occasionally will post something as I did with the original thread. I can't go back and re-read what I missed, but I too read the thread as GM was cancelling the Outlook. I thought maybe they were going to give it to Chevy or something. I'm sure I made the mistake in the way I read the post. In any case if I could offer my .02, Josh, if you're going to post something like that and it's not a link or press release, but your own understanding of a source ect., just be clear about what's going on. I never saw anywhere where it was delayed by two months ect. Again probably my mistake, but it would've been helpful if the message was clearer. Also, when I came back today to check on the latest I'm like, "what happened to this story?" Front page news shouldn't just dissappear like that with no explaination regardless of who is at fault. Now this thread is buried in the Saturn news. Maybe that's what GM wants, but I think it's a disservice to your members to not have some explaination, link, SOMETHING to all of your readers who were so upset yesterday. Thanks

I've got to agree that the posting was somewhat misleading...Can't you leave this 'retraction' post on the homepage to get the correct info out to casual readers?

[haypops]

Like many here, I missed the whole thread before it disappeared. So my comments are quite limited. The lack of a front page retraction just isn't acceptable. Josh fix that and we can all move on.

[Camino LS6]

[91z4me]

For those that didn't read the thread for whatever reason: Josh said he had reports of the Outlook being shelved. That is IT. He didn't say it was dead, although I as well as many other did make that assumption. The assumption that it was dead by posters on C&G, not Josh or other staff, is what caused the problems. As far as Josh having to appoligize that is just idiotic. He got a tip and ran with it, just like EVERY other enthusiest website would have. It was true and IS true even now. GM asked that the story be removed and Josh removed it, just like he did with the Ion picture. Just like he didn't show the next CTS picture, just like he didn't show a lot of the stuff that he and others have access to. The only time where C&G has kept something out is when they found pics of GMT900 peices WAY before anyone else had anything.

For those calling for something, BACK OFF! You may not get what you like if keep harping on this!

[regfootball]

Did I misread this? This is from Autoblog:

Saturn Outlook shelved?

Posted Feb 17th 2006 8:00AM by John Neff

Filed under: Minivans/MPVs

A post in the Cheers & Gears forums is claiming that GM is “rethinking” the Saturn Outlook and may cancel the upcoming crossover in a few weeks. This would happen just weeks before its debut at the New York Auto Show and mere months before the Lambda-based model is scheduled to go on sale.

Cheers & Gears claims only that this news comes from “industry sources”, which has us wondering where these sources are getting their info. The Outlook would share its Lambda platform with the Buick Enclave (the concept of which is to die for), as well as the GMC Acadia, so it’s curious GM would scuttle one unless an issue with insufficient production capacity is involved. Normally, however, automakers want to produce as many vehicles on a particular platform as possible, so this news has us scratching our heads.

Likewise, crossover vehicles, or CUVs, are the next big thing, like green ketchup or Ashlee Simpson (sign here if you’d prefer her publicly silenced forever), so why would the General deprive Saturn of what’s sure to be a decent seller in an emerging segment?

we can silence ashlee simpson but she at least has a nice gun rack.

[91z4me]

we can silence ashlee simpson but she at least has a nice gun rack.

Hell yes she does!

[Guest YellowJacket894]

we can silence ashlee simpson but she at least has a nice gun rack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. And I wouldn't mind planting my gun in the middle hanger, either. :AH-HA_wink:

[buickguy]

I think we need to wait and give Josh the benefit of the doubt.

The story was pulled, because GM asked that it be pulled, much like they wanted Camaro spy pics pulled. GM didn't deny the Outlook story.

If you want info from a major company, sometimes you need to play by their rules.

THe Outlook link is gone from saturn.com, so who knows. Let's see what happens.

By the way, Josh, saw my first real Solstice today in NY today. Sweet! Red with black top. The driver was 70 with a young chick and enjoying life!

[Guest Josh]

By the way, Josh, saw my first real Solstice today in NY today.  Sweet!  Red with black top.  The driver was 70 with a young chick and enjoying life!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As it should have been!

Z is also right. We will just have to wait and see how this Outlook story plays out. But, I will expect a full apology from every single person, web-site and "enthusiast" out there that continues to badmouth me, this site and the information that I feature.

That said, we're all entitled to our opinions, and frankly I know what was said, and nothing about the vehicle being currently cancelled was mentioned. I'd love for somebody to prove otherwise.

[PurdueGuy]

Just a note to help know how readers will interperate words: to me, "shelved" means something like "put on hold indefinately". If they know how long it's on hold, then it's "delayed". I didn't see the original article, and frankly don't think it sounds like Josh's actions are out of line. *shrug* I hope to see Saturn get the Outlook eventually - it's one of a number of new products that have me excited for the future of Saturn.

[Croc]

Saturn is getting the Outlook; production is merely starting 2 months later than originally thought. Old news.

[ChrisPauwels]

What can we expect from you when the vehicle does in fact debut soon?

Did he say it wasn't going to debut an the Auto Show? I don't think so.