NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway

[dsm363]

Posted here
Recreating the NY Times Road Trip - We're on This Weekend! - Page 53

But

Response is up
Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test - NYTimes.com

 

[Norbert]

I agree. Excellent point, never thought about it like that. 200miles/22mpg=9.09 gallons (9.09*$3.50=$31.81) so could even be more than two hours at work if you do after tax income.

According to gasbuddy.com, even regular is back up to $3.69... ... and it seems even in the cold, at the speed limit, they were driving 200 miles with 16 - 30 or so miles remaining. That gets close to $40.

 

[FlasherZ]

She did...

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-with-precision-and-judgment-but-not-integrity-in-tesla-test/

She basically says he made some errors in not realizing he was being monitored, but backs him up on the integrity angle (which was the most important aspect).

She also fails to grasp the concept of "lorem ipsum" correctly:

 

[dsm363]

So at best he is a sloppy reporter who can't do basic research for an article or keep decent notes is the defense.

 

[Todd Burch]

I see her response as "facts be damned, uphold the integrity of the Times." Problems with precision? That's an understatement.

If a car magazine did a review of a gas car, only filled up the tank halfway, and then reported measly MPG ratings as a result, would that be a "problem with precision"?

To be fair, I think many of us believe that there are a few points Elon made that are too arguable to be presented as an indisputable rebuttal to Broder's experience. But Broder's "defense" to many of Elon's accusations are way too nonsensical and cannot be interpreted as poor notetaking. Wheel sizes and cruise control deviations causing discrepancies in the speed logs, which he presented as part of his defense, are *easily* disproven. Notice that Mrs. Sullivan does not take the time to delve into any of the scientific facts to prove or disprove them. Shameless.

 

[Yuri_G]

I see her response as "facts be damned, uphold the integrity of the Times." Problems with precision? That's an understatement.

If a car magazine did a review of a gas car, only filled up the tank halfway, and then reported measly MPG ratings as a result, would that be a "problem with precision"?

To be fair, I think many of us believe that there are a few points Elon made that are too arguable to be presented as an indisputable rebuttal to Broder's experience. But Broder's "defense" to many of Elon's accusations are way too nonsensical and cannot be interpreted as poor notetaking. Wheel sizes and cruise control deviations causing discrepancies in the speed logs, which he presented as part of his defense, are *easily* disproven. Notice that Mrs. Sullivan does not take the time to delve into any of the scientific facts to prove or disprove them. Shameless.

Agreed, I was waiting for some kind of conclusive statement, but she kind of just stopped writing. Broder should be removed from writing articles on any alternative fuel vehicle at the least.

 

[Dan5]

This is my 7 page response I sent into the NYT. Precision my butt- he questioned the speedometer, made poor decisions and questioned all the calibrations. WTF

Made it a google document

A Tesla owners response.doc - Google Drive

 

[Norbert]

Broder's deviations from the actual numbers, and the consequences of his "judgement", seem to me to be too consistent in the negative direction, to be merely the consequence of sloppy notes. I'm not surprised by the newspaper trying to take this position, but I think more than that has happened.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

Not a conclusion that many Tesla fans here will be happy with but one that I support - "My own findings are not dissimilar to the reader I quote above, although I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it."

 

[rolosrevenge]

Except for the part where he "experienced" speeds of 54 mph and 45 mph for extended periods of time, or the time he experienced charging...

 

[Norbert]

Not a conclusion that many Tesla fans here will be happy with but one that I support - "My own findings are not dissimilar to the reader I quote above, although I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it."

"support" ... or "accept" ?

 

[Owner]

I see her response as "facts be damned, uphold the integrity of the Times."

would that be a "problem with precision"?

I'm seeing this as a wishy washy "marketing" response.

I myself will no longer be reading any stories from the New York Times. As a Californian, it never had much appeal to me but it has lots all credibility in my eyes at this point.

 

[Yuri_G]

This comment on the article nails it.

"In addition, Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored. A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs, which Mr. Musk has used, in the most damaging (and sometimes quite misleading) ways possible, as he defended his vehicle’s reputation."

This is the entire admission of fault by NYT? Disappointing to say the least. Why should the reporter need to be aware that there was a data recorder in the car in order for the reader to expect accurate reporting...the difference between 45mph on cruise control (as reported) and 60+mph (actual) cannot simply be tossed aside as the result of "casual" note taking. Inaccurate; sloppy; exaggerated; misleading would all be more honest adjectives. Setting temperature up instead of down, same comment. Further "little red notebook?" Really, while driving? When time and mph etc. matter, why rely on memory when, say, a tape recorder or recording phone app would give the reader the accuracy expected in a piece like this.

Misleading, lazy, defensive writing is not worthy of the NYT....and chalking that up to "we didn't know we could be fact-checked" is an even sadder defense to be offered up by an editor.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

"support" ... or "accept" ?

support.... like many people outside of TMC (and a few brave members who are prepared to speak out) "I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it."

IMO this has become a witch hunt against Mr Broder and reflects a growing trend within TMC to represent the extreme views of people who hold stock in the company. This was a great place to hang out but has become increasingly unbalanced and IMO deserves a thorough review of standards by the site owner and moderators.

 

[rolosrevenge]

I just tweeted to her that "Precision in reporting numbers IS integrity, at least in the IEEE" I didn't realize their standards were so low at the NYT.

 

[JRP3]

It's predictably weak, but what really bothers me is this part:

Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular, decisions he made at a crucial juncture – when he recharged the Model S in Norwich, Conn., a stop forced by the unexpected loss of charge overnight – were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama ending.

The problem started with not using Range Charge at the previous two locations, and if he had at least used a full Standard Charge at the second stop the "unexpected loss of charge overnight" would not have been an issue and he would not have run out of charge. He made crucial errors long before he lost the overnight charge. Those errors were simply compounded along the way.

 

[zeron]

I don't get it. This is the result of 5 days "reporting" and extensive inquiries? It's no wonder journalism isn't a viable business anymore.

 

[Norbert]

This comment on the article nails it.

Yes, agree with this comment. Though would just say "sad" instead of "even sadder".

 

[JRP3]

support.... like many people outside of TMC (and a few brave members who are prepared to speak out) "I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it."

So you think his previous anti EV article had no bearing on his mindset? I'm not positive he purposely set out to fail, but he certainly did a number of things to make sure it happened, some of which fly in the face of common sense.

IMO this has become a witch hunt against Mr Broder and reflects a growing trend within TMC to represent the extreme views of people who hold stock in the company. This was a great place to hang out but has become increasingly unbalanced and IMO deserves a thorough review of standards by the site owner and moderators.

Hopefully they will ignore this ridiculous statement. You have a view contrary to most of us here regarding Tesla, which is fine, but don't be surprised when few agree with you. I'd say most of us here have been critical of Tesla many times over on many different topics and will probably continue to do so when appropriate. I'm not even suggesting that Tesla didn't make errors in this case, I'm just saying the blame is squarely on Mr. Broder's shoulders, whatever his motivation.

 

[jomo25]

If all his note "errors" were honest errors, one would think we'd see them vary both positively and negatively. It just so happened that all his note "errors" were off in the same direction. His notes about charge time, climate control, and speed all just happened to be off in a manner that would lead to a negative review. I don't buy that this was just coincidence.