Elon calls NYTimes writer "A huge douchebag, and an idiot!"

[graham]

And the backlash continues:
The Moral Hazard of Cleantech Hubris -- Seeking Alpha

Let’s restart the hard-hitting investigative interview:

Lacy: The New York Times did this piece that everyone in Silicon Valley got very up in arms about, saying that, you know, that the government money going to Tesla, would be this, you know, huge risk of capital that would only benefit the wealthy and venture capital backers who put money in the company, and called the Roadster basically a $109,000 concept car.

What do you say to that article?

Musk: Randy Stross is a huge douchebag! [Both laugh uproariously.] And an idiot!

Wow! I’m impressed! What a command of the English language! What an ability to inspire confidence among taxpayers that their $700m will be well spent! I’m not sure which is the greater need: journalism lessons for the new-media host or PR lessons for the centimillionaire entrepreneur.

After this ad hominem attack, Musk changes the subject:

Musk: First of all, what is he doing picking on electric car company? I mean, why would he pick on the little guy who's trying to do good, when you’ve got egregious wastes of money in the tens of billions occurring in … in … in Detroit? Why?

Hmmm... So wasting nearly a billion dollars on a little car company is OK because it’s not as bad as wasting $10 billion on a big car company? Musk said the money was intended for a “mass market car,” but (since no one owns a car in Manhattan) only in Silicon Valley would $57k be “mass market.”

 

[bobw]

We had a subthread in this thread a while back about watching one's mouth. Apparently I was more impressed with Elon Musk's media savvy than I should have been.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/news...ar-elon-musk.html?highlight=freaking#post4088

The media are like small children: you have to watch what you say because they'll repeat it at just the wrong time.

 

[dpeilow]

New York Times Roars. Too Bad They Live In Oz.

If O’Brien and Stross want to defend their atrocious work, the place to do it is at the New York Times, not some other publication. And they should aim their arguments at Elon Musk and Tesla, not the journalist who got Musk to talk on camera. Lacy, a hugely respected journalist in Silicon Valley, has no need to defend herself for getting a scoop like this. I’m appalled at what the NY Times has done here, and it won’t soon be forgotten.

 

[doug]

Silicon 'Valley Girl' Gets Tough With Times | The New York Observer

Gawker - Sarah Lacy Is the Interviewer Elon Musk Was Looking For - sarah lacy

 

[stopcrazypp]

Wow, so much drama over one interview. You have Mike Arringtonhttp://www.techcrunch.com/author/michael-arrington/ from Techcrunch defending Lacy, then you have O'brien from NYO defending Stross from NYT and attacking Lacy, then you have Owen Thomas from Valleywag (with a grudge with Tesla) coming out of nowhere and criticizing both Lacy & Tesla/Musk.

 

[AnOutsider]

Wow Gawker REALLY hates Tesla, and whoever is leaking info from the inside needs to be dealt with:

The untrained observer and the Government may be persuaded by typical industry show car building tricks, but insiders and auto experts know that the Model S that was revealed was a reworked Mercedes CLS. To top it off the components and parts on the vehicle are not even those ever considered in the design.

The fact is Tesla had an agreement with an OEM [original equipment manufacturer] to use their off the shelf parts in the model S. Unfortunately that agreement expires in 2010, a good three years before Tesla can get the Model S engineered (assuming they get federal money). No other OEM has been willing to give Tesla the rights to buy parts or component CAD to design to, hence Tesla would need some additional $300M to develop all of the necessary hardware (suspension, air bags and sensors, modules etc.)

Cost:

D&R the Model S $250M
Build the Factory $300M
Components to put in the car $300M
Retail outlets $50M

 

[stopcrazypp]

Wow Gawker REALLY hates Tesla, and whoever is leaking info from the inside needs to be dealt with:

The "insider" does have some point, we have discussed all of the same points in the the Model S threads, except for the OEM parts section.

Seems like the "insider" though has some contempt for Tesla. Seems more like spy than a typical employee to me.

 

[AnOutsider]

Seems like the "insider" though has some contempt for Tesla. Seems more like spy than a typical employee to me.

That's what I mean.. it's not if they have a point or not... You stand by your company and you don't intentionally try to hurt their reputation. It was already stated that there's a donor chassis being used in the demo Model S and that it was asked to be not mentioned... here comes the "insider".

The "insider" also only leaks negative information.

 

[vfx]

The "insider" also only leaks negative information.

At least that's all that Gawker tells us about.

I would like to see the original and the edited Column from Randy. It's rather hearsay-ish at this point in time.

Would be good to have a correct recording of the facts here.

 

[graham]

I have seen some of the email conversation between Stross and Musk leading up to the original article. Stross is not a dumb guy - he definitely had the information leading up to the article that the govt. loan was for the Model S not the Roadster. He also had other facts from Elon ahead of time that were reported inaccurately or skewed to support his point out of context from Elon's intent.

I don't remember all the details - but I do remember at the time thinking that Stross had gone into the email interview with an agenda and cherry picked details out of context only to support it.

 

[AnOutsider]

I have seen some of the email conversation between Stross and Musk leading up to the original article. Stross is not a dumb guy - he definitely had the information leading up to the article that the govt. loan was for the Model S not the Roadster. He also had other facts from Elon ahead of time that were reported inaccurately or skewed to support his point out of context from Elon's intent.

I don't remember all the details - but I do remember at the time thinking that Stross had gone into the email interview with an agenda and cherry picked details out of context only to support it.

Which is probably why Elon said something to the effect of "Don't come to me asking for info got a positive spin thinking it will counteract all the false negatives you write about us" or something.. it was in the article.

Either way, it's irresponsible journalism, and it all looks like it's personal and petty vs just being business and professional.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Rebuttal Redux: NY Times responds to Musk's "douchebag" comment

Edit: Actually it's the same article by the NY Observer on Lacy, except linked through autobloggreen, I thought it was NY Time's response.