G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke

I rarely paste the headline/title piece I am commenting on for a variety of reasons, but here I am making a point.

Those who come to the Junkk.com website homepage will initially only see the Title and first line (above). And on that basis may, or may not, decide to learn more. So, what popped into your head when you saw this (prefaced by 'Carbon Neutral?'):

G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke

To me it is a good example of how there is the chance of undue steering of public thought (maybe just in the cause of a nifty headline, but often one wonders. I too often hear the cry 'but it was explained in para 5' on Newswatch) by what happens between headline, subhead, copy and, often, links.

Because, though still literal, I have to say I thought it was something else at first, especially glancing at the first part of this opener sentence: 'The electric car's potential for saving the planet by reducing our dependence on oil and lowering carbon emissions has been dealt a blow with the news that a best-selling model may suddenly burst into flames."

That said, I do have a real problem with this: 'Its British retailer, GoinGreen, offsets the car's manufacture and use, allowing it to claim that the vehicle is completely "carbon neutral".'

Maybe it is being unfairly singled out by "a few petrolhead motoring journalists" (though safety issues are surely pertinent - how does a SMART stack up?), but I think its green cred was poorly served by a medium one might have thought to be more supportive.