Norbert
TSLA will win
"By a large margin" doesn't really mean anything. Nowhere else than on Twitter could you write something like that.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
So she rushes to report the negative news based on the first information she received. But then very soon the next day when the smoke settled, the truth came out. Tesla equipment is not the cause.
What should a self-respecting ethical journalist do? correction? retraction? nah.. do a drive by hit piece and keep going. She reminds me of the characters that hang out on Las Vegas Blvd. Just different professions. Always looking for a negative angle, exaggerate and when called out, move on to another hit piece. Just look at every article she has written the last 5 years. Russ Mitchell is another one.
Tesla supercharger ruled out as cause of N.J. fire
A local fire official said a blaze near a Wawa convenience store originated from an on-site transformer that sends power from the electric utility's line to the charging stations.
www.autonews.com
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think most of us are quite familiar with the biased journalism that has been done on Tesla over the years, no need to recap old news. That doesn't change the fact that in this recent case Kolodny tried to get better data from Tesla but the company failed to provide it. Tesla has been quiet about the solar roof deployments and we all know why as you yourself admitted. Why pretend otherwise?
I think it is the other way. In the legacy media is where you can write whatever you want - innuendos, biased slated reporting, out of context reporting, selective reporting... and outright lies - and get away with it.
Not in Twitter. You get called out. If not today, perhaps tomorrow when the truth comes out. Even in this case if tomorrow if it really turns out the Solar roof install numbers are say just around 3500, Tesla will be called out and pilloried and quartered right here on Twitter.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
"A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes"
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No, you're dead on. Tesla can't say the report is way off and then not provide any data. They've had, what, six years to report specific numbers of solar roof installs and haven't.
Also, the people claiming this is a "gotcha" of Koldnoy/CNBC are telling on themselves. She didn't come up with this 3,000 number. Wood Mackenzie did the research. She's reporting on that and even asked Tesla for comment before publishing.
Tesla could fix this by not being a childish company when it comes to communication and PR. Or, you know, providing your own data refuting the 3,000 number. "Nuh uh, you're wrong!!" is how three year olds reason.
italian bread
Member
"This is incorrect by a large margin."
And stopcrazy, herein lies a central problem with the BS on Twitter. When people make these claims, then you go dig in, as you did, and find the facts are completely different from the claim, you have wasted scads of time on pretty minor incorrect claims. There are probably hundreds of thousands of such statements on Twitter every day, and digging through them to try to separate the facts from the BS is just impossible. Not just beyond what anyone who has a real life can do, but literally impossible. And any fool can get on there and say stuff like this.
Just to underline the Tesla fire story, for one.
There’s a fire, editor tells reporter go find out what happened. Reporter ask police, what happened? Police says “X.”
Reporter writes “X."
As is sometimes the case with breaking news, the authorities have it wrong. Police call reporter back, and “Uh, Y is what really happened."
Reporter writes: "police say their initial statement was off, actually Y happened."
This is the nature of breaking news. It can be pretty messy in the beginning, the facts scarce ... but in this case the reporter had a usually-solid source, the police. The reporter correctly attributes the statement that "it was X" to the police. So, the police were wrong, not the reporter. Readers look at the story and say, well, this is probably true, but there’s a small chance the police are wrong, I’ll keep an eye on it...” Media organization then updates the second-day story to make it more accurate. The third day, a deeper investigation by fire marshal yields more detail, like, how the fire started. And there’s a third story.
This is news, not a history text, and this is how news works. It’s not SUPPOSED to be perfect. That’s understood by most people. It’s the best first draft a pro can put together.
Meanwhile? Over on Twitter?... you get a statement by some influencer or someone with an unknown conflict of interest, or someone you kind of trust or do trust... then you get people “calling them out” and you go investigate all of this and take like, an hour to figure out what really was going on with the attack on Pelosi’s husband. Or... you just wing it and post what you think happened based on your biased impressions of San Francisco, which you’ve never visited, never having left Lubbock or wherever. Then people retweet you and 300 people go spend an hour figuring out what the truth behind your tweet was, and another 900 don’t bother they just retweet it and it spreads.... Yeah, this is a great substitute for MSM.
Last edited:
The problem with the so called Twitter “call out” is most of those are biased one way or another. And you have to dig into that too.
For example, someone quoted the 400,000 Tesla solar installs as evidence that the article was wrong. Implying it was off by a factor of 3,000:400,000. and everyone jumped on that as proof - it was a link to a Tesla page. But that’s not even what the article was about. 400,000 includes all solar installs.
Even if 3,000 is not even close. What, 6000? Relative to the statement of 1,000 per week starting in 2019 6,000 is nothing. 10,000 is nothing.
Man I love when they start eating their own.
Between this and MTG getting banned, the surprising takeaway for me is that Twitter still has some kind of moderation system.
I suspect that we'll soon hear of a secret list of users who are either immune from bans or that Elon has to personally approve the ban.
Norbert
TSLA will win
The media does have a lot of fact checking as well. While Twitter probably has the upper hand on the amount of "calling out", on any controversial topic fact and reason get "called out" as much as anything else. How is it that election lies, climate change denial, and conspiracy theories are surviving so well? There is so much "calling out" that it becomes somewhat meaningless. Maybe you could even say that a lot of the content comes as "calling out" in the first place, and has no higher fact/evidence value than everything else (which is low). Conspiracy theories are a form of "calling out" by nature.
- Status
