NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway

[Todd Burch]

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.

The fact is that there's no way to prove his intentions. As someone who holds quite a bit of stock in Tesla, I certainly cannot sit here and say that without a doubt he had negative intentions.

However, if his intentions were not negative, then IMHO he certainly proved himself to have little or no common sense.

 

[Norbert]

Elon re-tweeted this comment:

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah
Interesting: @nytimes public editor sides (mostly) with #Tesla. RT @Sulliview My thoughts on thorny problem: Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test - NYTimes.com … …
Retweeted by Elon Musk

Is it already time for everyone to claim victory?

 

[vfx]

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.

Imprecise = sloppy. That's the way he reported and that's the way he drove. Both were used to discredit Tesla.

 

[Norbert]

Imprecise = sloppy. That's the way he reported and that's the way he drove. Both were used to discredit Tesla.

In a nutshell.

 

[nikwest]

Imprecise = sloppy. That's the way he reported and that's the way he drove. Both were used to discredit Tesla.

Well, imprecise would be: I charged for about an hour. But the author gave some impression of precision by stating he charged for 49 minutes. This is a journalistic problem. I think the article needs to be removed or amended.

 

[Doug_G]

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.

Heck no! As long as people stay civil they are fully within their rights to speak their mind. We're not the thought police, we're the "civility" and "organization" police.

Personally I thought her response was reasonably balanced, except for one thing: those "poor decisions" she cited were the only reason he failed to make it to the next Supercharger. As a result the depiction of the performance of the vehicle was egregiously wrong.

 

[rolosrevenge]

Saying "I set the cruise control to 54, then 45" is pretty precise. Considering that there is little variance with Model S cruise control and a digital speedometer, I can't see how this is excusable. Especially when you look at how long he was driving at 60. But hey, precision isn't integrity in journalism any more evidently.

 

[kgb]

Some of the people following this thread may not have caught this parallel thread:
Inspired by NYT Tesla test, here are my consumer trials of some products (humor))

We'd appreciate your humorous input there as well.

 

[rcc]

The last bit of an email I sent to the NYTimes.

--

While I don't agree completely with Elon Musk's rebuttal, there's data in the logs that flat-out contradict Broder's review at certain points.

"I cannot account for the discrepancy" simply doesn't cut it. That's very sloppy journalism at best.

At worst, that plus the choices he made in managing the car and crafting the article seems like a case of creating the story you want to tell instead of finding out the facts and telling a story from them. From a journalistic standpoint, I would call that an integrity problem.

Either way, I expect a better grade of journalism from the New York Times.

--

I can understand why Elon called the review a fake. The facts are there to support a story that two superchargers are spaced a bit far apart and you've got to be careful when travelling between them.

But what Broder did smacks of "Reality TV": deliberate, even scripted actions designed to create melodrama. Especially since he could have made it clear in the article that he was pushing the car to the edge and didn't.

 

[Seegem]

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.

+1!!!

 

[SteveG3]

I think Sullivan attempted to write an article balancing four goals (not necessarily in order of importance)

a) Protect the reputation of the New York Times
b) Not end Broder's career
c) Not leave anyone with the impression that the content of the article is worthy of drawing conclusions about the model S. (see below)
d) Protect her own sanity

if c) were Sullivan's only goal it would have been spelled out crystal clearly. personally, I am at least satisfied that it was implied fairly clearly.

here's where I see c) implied,

"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."

combined with,

"People will go on contesting these points – and insisting that they know what they prove — and that’s understandable. In the matter of the Tesla Model S and its now infamous test drive, there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable."

 

[Yuri_G]

It seems Elon is content.

Appreciate thoughtful @Sulliview article. Faith in @nytimes restored.

Twitter / elonmusk: Appreciate thoughtful @Sulliview ...

Sounds like Sullivan's piece will be the final word.

 

[SebastianR]

It seems Elon is content.

Twitter / elonmusk: Appreciate thoughtful @Sulliview ...

Sounds like Sullivan's piece will be the final word.

Well, what could he do now? I would be ok with her take if they would bother to update the initial article with a statement that the article includes "sloppy" reporting and a link to her latest piece. But leaving the original piece untouched is bad style.

With regards to the question of bad intentions vs. being an idiot? Well this I what I think:

​

 

[Dan5]

Kevin

I disagree,
Had Broder not acted like a complete idiot and represented as the the average driver, the outcry would have been far far less.

If he had said, I drove it going the speed limit with the heat on, or I had gone 10 mph over the speed limit, charged in range mode, and fully charged the vehicle at both stops, and still managed to stall out. That's would have been OK and he would not have had the controversy.

Broder didn't do that he acted like an idiot

 

[brianman]

My conclusion from Sullivan's article:

I do not respect her integrity. She made a conscious choice to post what she did after much deliberation and taking all facts into account. If the editors represent the NYT in this fashion -- especially with a significant public eye on this particular response -- it says even more about the NYT than Broder's article.

 

[SteveG3]

Brainman, I hear what you are saying. after the last week, I am sad to say I both agree with what you said and find her writeup on the higher end of the scale of what has been written by several papers/websites (a thank you to Sullivan's brother in hand here). it's been a painful eye opener, but apparently it is the reality of media coverage.

My conclusion from Sullivan's article:

I do not respect her integrity. She made a conscious choice to post what she did after much deliberation and taking all facts into account. If the editors represent the NYT in this fashion -- especially with a significant public eye on this particular response -- it says even more about the NYT than Broder's article.

 

[bonnie]

(Excuse typos - mobile device)

her response was inadequate, but so what? It serves the purpose of 'even the NYT' didn't fully buy it. The Model S is an amazing, game-changing car. this story will get lost in the dust, as more and more people experience what it is like to drive one.

 

[brianman]

her response was inadequate, but so what? It serves the purpose of 'even the NYT' didn't fully buy it. The Model S is an amazing, game-changing car. this story will get lost in the dust, as more and more people experience what it is like to drive one.

The primary role of a news source is provide truth. The NYT is not even interested in providing the truth. If they were, they would provide an adequate response.

An adequate response would go point-by-point through every discrepancy between Broder's position, Musk's position, and equivalent-test-drive data from CNN and the owner caravan(s). In that response, the "NYT editor's opinion"-- which should be clearly derived from the data available -- should be offered. Further, the assertions and guesses in Broder's reply to Musk's blog should be evaluated in the same fashion.

Instead, the "NYT editor's review" was just a fluff piece designed to say almost nothing and hope it would all go away. It's a lot more like a politician's approach to deal with facts and the truth than a news source.

If I was involved in the journalism industry and considered the NYT a significant part of that industry, I would have professional disgust and probably wouldn't be able to eat lunch.

 

[Beavis]

You don't need to read between the lines to understand that she thinks this is bad reporting but she can't prove malicious intent. We should be satisfied with that if Elon is.

 

[bonnie]

The primary role of a news source is provide truth. The NYT is not even interested in providing the truth. If they were, they would provide an adequate response.

An adequate response would go point-by-point through every discrepancy between Broder's position, Musk's position, and equivalent-test-drive data from CNN and the owner caravan(s). In that response, the "NYT editor's opinion"-- which should be clearly derived from the data available -- should be offered. Further, the assertions and guesses in Broder's reply to Musk's blog should be evaluated in the same fashion.

Instead, the "NYT editor's review" was just a fluff piece designed to say almost nothing and hope it would all go away. It's a lot more like a politician's approach to deal with facts and the truth than a news source.

In no way am I saying that her reply was good, or right, or whatever. I'm only saying (IMO) that it was enough so that this broder debacle can become nothing more than a small pothole in the EV highway.