NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway

[SFOTurtle]

I don't know what kind of proceedings you or your company participated in, but defamation or trade libel are difficult claims to prove here in the US, at least prove through a judgment and have the result upheld on appeal. The deck is already stacked against you somewhat as a plaintiff bringing the case, and no doubt the NYT would have appealed any adverse trial court rulings, thereby increasing the risk of a protracted and uncertain result even further. That's one of the reasons you see so few of these cases actually litigated through trial and a judgment here in the US.

Rather than route, Tesla made the right decision to enlist other media outlets with no preconceived biases and obtained priceless, positive publicity. You just can't buy the kind of publicity Tesla got the past week. And the NYT has been made to look pretty stupid by the other members of the media that had no problem making the trip Broder chose to fail at.

Just so you don't think I'm a complete novice here, I own a US corporation and have successfully participated in legal proceeding in the US.

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

Tonight I'm really wondering how Tesla will choose to respond to the NYT new article, which -- if at all possible -- seems even more directly critical of Tesla.

 

[K Hall]

No response needed. The issue was resolved with a slam offacts are empirical test. There will always be push back on the new technology.

Rockefeller tried the same approach trying to stop electrically lighted homes a 100 years ago. Look how well that worked out for him. He just converted his refineries from making kerosene to gasoline.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Talked to one of the Portland store folks yesterday and the NYT has made their life really difficult lately, combined with Tesla's stock dropping like a stone on the 4th quarter results. People come in the store to basically slam Tesla and insult them. And this is Oregon; a liberal, green state. I'd hate to be in the Texas store.

I wonder if how many of those hate EVs already in the first place. Or maybe they are avid NYT readers and are offended by Tesla accusing them of lying.

 

[stevezzzz]

I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that the NYT, in this most recent piece about the Broder kerfuffle, quoted out of context the first sentence of my initial reaction to Broder's story, which I posted on the first page of this thread back on February 8. Back then, I didn't have any of the other information about this story that we now do: the point-by-point analysis of Broder's writings here on TMC, Elon's twitters and blog post, the data logs, Broder's backfilling in response to the inconsistencies between his notes and the logs, etc. All I was going on was my initial reading of Broder's story and, even at that early date, in that first post I questioned why he didn't Range charge at Newark or take even a full Standard charge at Milford, and especially why he didn't plug in overnight at the hotel in Groton. I was prepared, since it was published in the eminently respectable NYT and Broder writes well, in a soothingly reasonable manner, to imagine that, somehow, Tesla failed to provide him with enough information to make the trip successfully.

But that was then, and this is now. What's clear to me now is that Broder had several clear opportunities to make his road trip as boring and uneventful as the various successful re-creations we've read about since. He failed to take even one of those opportunities, in at least one case (a range charge at Newark) apparently ignoring Tesla's explicit instructions. But even more to the point, he failed to exercise common sense and did not display any clear desire to achieve a successful outcome: the whole thing was an excruciatingly slow train wreck played out over two days, with Broder asleep at the wheel.

Broder was the one in the driver's seat, but to this day he takes no responsibility for the outcome: the car failed to do what he asked of it, full stop. It's an abdication of his basic responsibility as a driver (or, to make the aviation analogy, as the 'pilot-in-command': the ultimate authority and responsible party concerning the safe and successful conduct of any aircraft operation). His abdication of responsibility seems to me to be at the heart of why his account is inherently unreliable, all the gory details aside.

Q: How do I avoid having media outlets cherry pick my forum posts and quote me out of context, without asking permission? Or should I just go hide under a rock?

 

[dsm363]

I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that the NYT, in this most recent piece about the Broder kerfuffle, quoted out of context the first sentence of my initial reaction to Broder's story, which I posted on the first page of this thread back on February 8. Back then, I didn't have any of the other information about this story that we now do: the point-by-point analysis of Broder's writings here on TMC, Elon's twitters and blog post, the data logs, Broder's backfilling in response to the inconsistencies between his notes and the logs, etc. All I was going on was my initial reading of Broder's story and, even at that early date, in that first post I questioned why he didn't Range charge at Newark or take even a full Standard charge at Milford, and especially why he didn't plug in overnight at the hotel in Groton. I was prepared, since it was published in the eminently respectable NYT and Broder writes well, in a soothingly reasonable manner, to imagine that, somehow, Tesla failed to provide him with enough information to make the trip successfully.

But that was then, and this is now. What's clear to me now is that Broder had several clear opportunities to make his road trip as boring and uneventful as the various successful re-creations we've read about since. He failed to take even one of those opportunities, in at least one case (a range charge at Newark) apparently ignoring Tesla's explicit instructions. But even more to the point, he failed to exercise common sense and did not display any clear desire to achieve a successful outcome: the whole thing was an excruciatingly slow train wreck played out over two days, with Broder asleep at the wheel.

Broder was the one in the driver's seat, but to this day he takes no responsibility for the outcome: the car failed to do what he asked of it, full stop. It's an abdication of his basic responsibility as a driver (or, to make the aviation analogy, as the 'pilot-in-command': the ultimate authority and responsible party concerning the safe and successful conduct of any aircraft operation). His abdication of responsibility seems to me to be at the heart of why his account is inherently unreliable, all the gory details aside.

Q: How do I avoid having media outlets cherry pick my forum posts and quote me out of context, without asking permission? Or should I just go hide under a rock?

Have you contacted the editor?

[email protected]

I do not know why the Times decided to stir things up again. Notice how this wasn't written by a particular reporter, just the New York Times. Does that mean it's an editorial?

 

[vfx]

The first time using a new piece of technology replacing the old tech there may be mistakes made. The physical manifestations are different for each device though.

When moving from a typewriter to a computer you may accidentally erase a few hours of typing or lock up your computer. When moving from a landline phone to a cellular network you might find there are areas out there where you loose and important call. When moving from an oven to a microwave you may find the pasty outside is still cool but when you bite into it you scald you mouth. Or when moving from an gasoline engine to and electric motor / battery car you might not fill with enough energy to get to your next destination and end up freezing on the side of the road. doh. This is not the fault of the technology. It's just a different set of rules. I still question Tesla asking reporters air out these "first time" discoveries in the press.

 

[bonnie]

I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that the NYT, in this most recent piece about the Broder kerfuffle, quoted out of context the first sentence of my initial reaction to Broder's story, which I posted on the first page of this thread back on February 8. Back then, I didn't have any of the other information about this story that we now do: the point-by-point analysis of Broder's writings here on TMC, Elon's twitters and blog post, the data logs, Broder's backfilling in response to the inconsistencies between his notes and the logs, etc. All I was going on was my initial reading of Broder's story and, even at that early date, in that first post I questioned why he didn't Range charge at Newark or take even a full Standard charge at Milford, and especially why he didn't plug in overnight at the hotel in Groton. I was prepared, since it was published in the eminently respectable NYT and Broder writes well, in a soothingly reasonable manner, to imagine that, somehow, Tesla failed to provide him with enough information to make the trip successfully.

But that was then, and this is now. What's clear to me now is that Broder had several clear opportunities to make his road trip as boring and uneventful as the various successful re-creations we've read about since. He failed to take even one of those opportunities, in at least one case (a range charge at Newark) apparently ignoring Tesla's explicit instructions. But even more to the point, he failed to exercise common sense and did not display any clear desire to achieve a successful outcome: the whole thing was an excruciatingly slow train wreck played out over two days, with Broder asleep at the wheel.

Broder was the one in the driver's seat, but to this day he takes no responsibility for the outcome: the car failed to do what he asked of it, full stop. It's an abdication of his basic responsibility as a driver (or, to make the aviation analogy, as the 'pilot-in-command': the ultimate authority and responsible party concerning the safe and successful conduct of any aircraft operation). His abdication of responsibility seems to me to be at the heart of why his account is inherently unreliable, all the gory details aside.

Q: How do I avoid having media outlets cherry pick my forum posts and quote me out of context, without asking permission? Or should I just go hide under a rock?

A few forum members have added copyright info to their signature, that shows with each post - and a note that they are not to be quoted without express permission. I'm not sure that does any good, but it probably doesn't hurt. At least it gives you a way to protest later.

More bothersome to me (than the fact they quoted you out of context) is the issue of using anonymous forum posts to support a story. I know you, but if I didn't, you could easily be a NYT journalist, deliberately planting quotes that you then quote as part of your story. That's a problem.

Sources should be known, even anonymous sources may be revealed to an editor. This recent business of quoting forum members, operating under pseudonyms, is not worthy of the reputation that NYT has worked so hard to build.

The Fourth Estate has become insignificant.

 

[vfx]

...
Sources should be known, even anonymous sources may be revealed to an editor.....

An entire article that is based on the random comments from anonymous internet posters? Where is the journalism in that?

 

[brianman]

NYT sinks another notch.

Also, if Elon had a gentleman's agreement with them, NYT just violated it.

 

[Beavis]

Steve(I can't count the zs) and anyone else that was quoted really should contact The Times. This would usually fall under the rule, "Don't get into a pissing match with the press" but this is appalling. Go get 'em.

 

[brianman]

Steve(I can't count the zs) and anyone else that was quoted really should contact The Times. This would usually fall under the rule, "Don't get into a pissing match with the press" but this is appalling. Go get 'em.

What I find even more telling is that they picked quotes from the forum without owner permission, but simply ignored the reasoned emails that they got directly. Like mine about the cruise control absurdity.

Selective content? Definitely.

 

[markwj]

I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that the NYT, in this most recent piece about the Broder kerfuffle, quoted out of context the first sentence of my initial reaction to Broder's story, which I posted on the first page of this thread back on February 8. Back then, I didn't have any of the other information about this story that we now do: the point-by-point analysis of Broder's writings here on TMC, Elon's twitters and blog post, the data logs, Broder's backfilling in response to the inconsistencies between his notes and the logs, etc.

I suggest that you write a complaint to the NYT.

Something like: Tell them that at the time you wrote what you did, the lies and exaggerations of their reporter (Mr Broder) had not been revealed. You had trusted the integrity and accuracy of the NYT article - which has since been shown to be false. Ask them to either remove your quote from their article, or supplement it with your current opinion (which is ...).

I don't want to put words in your mouth (unlike the NYT), but if it was me I would not sit with that sinking feeling in my stomach.

 

[SteveG3]

I'll recount tomorrow, but I just went through the new Times piece, and saw 17 different sources they quoted from. The sources varied from anonymous posters here and on the Times website, to various writer's of online pieces, Elon Musk, and some of the words of a Columbia University professor at their Digital Journalism Center.

This new article in the Times deemed the words from these 17 sources worthy of inclusion in a retelling of the events of the last two weeks. As to the words and conclusions of their own public editor enlisted to investigate Broder's drive and its reporting, who interviewed all the key players, spending five days on her investigation, here is what they deemed worthy to include from her efforts in their retelling of events:

"The Times’s public editor addressed the matter in an opinion column"

I think in a civil manner Tesla can point out the imbalance in the piece. I get that they don't have the Times' megaphone, but the lack of balance is so glaring, I think it is worth a calm, firm statement.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't think there is any value in Tesla responding to that piece. It really adds nothing and is a rehash of various people's takes of the story.

I think Elon wants to put this behind him and focus on other things. And I think the general public is probably tired of this story by now too. If it's pushed any further people may be tired to hearing about Tesla or the Model S.

 

[stevezzzz]

I suggest that you write a complaint to the NYT.

Something like: Tell them that at the time you wrote what you did, the lies and exaggerations of their reporter (Mr Broder) had not been revealed. You had trusted the integrity and accuracy of the NYT article - which has since been shown to be false. Ask them to either remove your quote from their article, or supplement it with your current opinion (which is ...).

I don't want to put words in your mouth (unlike the NYT), but if it was me I would not sit with that sinking feeling in my stomach.

I've drafted an email to the NYT Public Editor and will sleep on it. If it passes the smell test when I review it tomorrow morning, I'll send it off.

[edit: ...when I review it later this morning...:biggrin:]

 

[Norbert]

Talked to one of the Portland store folks yesterday and the NYT has made their life really difficult lately, combined with Tesla's stock dropping like a stone on the 4th quarter results. People come in the store to basically slam Tesla and insult them. And this is Oregon; a liberal, green state. I'd hate to be in the Texas store.

Wow! That would be really bad if a typical situation.

 

[Norbert]

I don't think there is any value in Tesla responding to that piece. It really adds nothing and is a rehash of various people's takes of the story.

I think Elon wants to put this behind him and focus on other things. And I think the general public is probably tired of this story by now too. If it's pushed any further people may be tired to hearing about Tesla or the Model S.

Tesla should certainly make sure to get out the message about the true capabilities of the car, and dispel the misperceptions. I think the article derived its "power" from playing on pre-existing negative attitudes against EVs, including some in the EV community itself.

I'd expect this year there will be a growing number of Model S owners who will travel along that Supercharger axis each month, or even each weekend. This is not some adventurous trip through death valley, it's a major traffic route, *easily* handled by the Model S (as long as you are able to do something meaningful while charging, perhaps something on the computer or smartphone you'd do anyway.)

Personally I don't see any real significant facts up for discussion, it's all about negative attitudes and pseudo-facts whirled up by the original article. Which the NYT seems to be keen on keeping on a fire.

 

[yoda]

To anyone who has been following these events, this piece clearly proves the lack of integrity of the authors (note the byline is NYT). What a trashy publication.

 

[dpeilow]

What's the NYT's print circulation?