First of all, the pamphlets shown have no anti-EV statements whatsoever. In fact, as the article shows, they don't mention EV at all.
What they accuse them is propaganda by omission! The company dared not tout EV in its own pamphlet, but focus exclusively on their traditional models.
Well, they also didn't bet strong on the EV market, so can they promote what they actually focus on? Or is that forbidden?
Secondly, that hybrids are globally a more realistic solution in the next 10-20 years is true.
Some people bought their $50K+ Teslas (or some small EV for city use) and are under the delusion that in, say, 10 years or so (if not immediately), all gas stations could stop serving gas, and just have EV charging units.
The world is neither just Tokyo nor just California or Stockholm, nor is the capacity and infrastructure there (from batteries and materials required for them, to the power grid). And in the future, between inflation, infrastructure neglect, covid repercursions to the economy, climate change costs, trade war costs, and so on, infrastructure might even get worse, not better. (I'd bet those "all new cars must be EVs by 2030" edicts, will be revisited and expanded a couple of times).
Thirdly, that workers in many traditional car trades and manufacturing will go out of a job by such a switch is a fact, and something to be taken into account (of course there's always the Ayn Ran "solution": "fuck them").
If anything, it's the article that has a strong pro-EV-or-bust vibe (well, given the website), and it makes sense that the "complaint" came from a "concerned citizen", which could be anything from an EV-obsessed enthusiast to astroturfing.