-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway
- Thread starter Jeeps17
- Start date
- Status
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
I know the reflex in situations like this is to exercise economic influence and cancel subscriptions, but there is no way I'm canceling my subscription over this episode, as much as I'm disappointed and angered by how the Times has handled this whole situation. In the end, the Times is a lot more than any one (or group) of reporters and editors from a particular section of the paper. Like all old media, they are trying to figure out how to incorporate new media into their reporting and submissions to the public. If they ignore the web, they are accused of being out of touch, but they still seem to be struggling to figure out how to do it and maintain journalistic standards. I love the Times overall and it is the indispensable paper of record for me.
Theoretically, this latest article is meant to show the controversy that erupted online over the original Broder piece, and not to pass judgment on who is right or wrong. Of course, as many have noted, all editorial choices can skew opinions, and plucking more anti-Tesla (or pro-Broder) sentiments from the web makes it look like the Times is pushing opinions in one direction.
In my past, and occasionally in my current job, I have to deal with the press and see behind the scenes a bit on topics I know a lot about. It was shocking at first to see how a purported unbiased news article could skew facts to such an extent to have readers draw conclusions without necessarily hearing all sides of a story.
What I have done since, and suggest to others, is not to limit the information you receive to only those sources with whom you are predisposed to agree, but rather to try to get as much information as possible, and read everything with at least a bit of skepticism, because even when reporters try, their biases may show, or space considerations may push a story in a certain direction. Uncritical reading of the news, as this episode has shown, only leads to disenchantment and a lack of knowledge on any given topic. And as frustrating as it is to be misquoted (or to have your views misrepresented), I'd estimate that a third to half of all people quoted in any given article feel the same way, and that's usually when they know they are going to be quoted in a story! That's just the reality of reporting, and always has been. I sympathize because I've been there on many occasions.
Theoretically, this latest article is meant to show the controversy that erupted online over the original Broder piece, and not to pass judgment on who is right or wrong. Of course, as many have noted, all editorial choices can skew opinions, and plucking more anti-Tesla (or pro-Broder) sentiments from the web makes it look like the Times is pushing opinions in one direction.
In my past, and occasionally in my current job, I have to deal with the press and see behind the scenes a bit on topics I know a lot about. It was shocking at first to see how a purported unbiased news article could skew facts to such an extent to have readers draw conclusions without necessarily hearing all sides of a story.
What I have done since, and suggest to others, is not to limit the information you receive to only those sources with whom you are predisposed to agree, but rather to try to get as much information as possible, and read everything with at least a bit of skepticism, because even when reporters try, their biases may show, or space considerations may push a story in a certain direction. Uncritical reading of the news, as this episode has shown, only leads to disenchantment and a lack of knowledge on any given topic. And as frustrating as it is to be misquoted (or to have your views misrepresented), I'd estimate that a third to half of all people quoted in any given article feel the same way, and that's usually when they know they are going to be quoted in a story! That's just the reality of reporting, and always has been. I sympathize because I've been there on many occasions.
Fair point. I still think the Times is one of the best news organizations out there which is why this episode sucks so bad. They need to simply admit they made judgment errors and place an editorial comment on the original Broder article and call it a day.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Well, they claimed to already have passed the judgement that errors were made. Not-passing-judgement would be a step back from that, and skewing opinions the opposite way another step backwards.
It appears to me what they need to say is that they portrayed the Model S in a worse light than it deserves, however it seems to me they haven't done this yet.
A "third to half" seems far too many to me. (Even if it is the reality of reporting, or especially then).
William13
Active Member
The article is Orwellian double speak. The NYT know the original report was full of inaccurate statements. Tesla cannot give them raw data as this would require teaching a non ally their computer language and trade secrets. I suggest that the NYT is in the business of controversy and we are only helping them to sell newspapers. I suggest Tesla not respond further at this point. If they write an article a week they are only going to sell more cars.
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
This might have been the right approach in the first instance. Lets face it -- had Elon and Tesla not said anything in response to Broder's article (highly unlikely under the circumstances, but still) I don't know if it would've garnered nearly the attention it did. Everyone loves a cat fight, which this turned into quickly, especially involving the Times, which most everyone else in the media wants to knock off its perch. I am most annoyed that everyone who talks to me about the car now first mentions this whole deal with Broder, which is absurd, especially down here where so few people look to use their car to drive long distances.
I think this article does more than that. The entire article presents a back-and-forth dynamic that builds to a dramatic conclusion in the form of Blodget's quote. The article is a well-written (in the sense of "skillful use of the English language") attempt to conclude that no normal person would ever buy an EV for primary transportation, and EV's are inherently inferior to ICE vehicles. Unspoken but clear is the secondary benefit of supporting Broder's article: if EV's are prima facie less flexible and inferior than ICE vehicles, then it's not Broder's fault he ran out of fuel.
This article is nothing less than a deliberate, well-thought-out and skillfully-delivered attack on Tesla and EV's in order to support the Times and Broder's prior writings and hopefully derive more benefit than harm from this whole debacle. This article does not have an unbiased bone in its body.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It may not have garnered as much attention but all of it would have been negative. No way could that article be left to stand on it's own. Musk went on the attack, as he should have, though he may have overstated the case to some degree, which unfortunately clouded the issues somewhat. Ultimately the Times, and other news sources, learned that if you are going to go after Tesla you better have your facts straight, even if they won't admit that publicly. The ignorant will use the article to bash Tesla while supporters will point out all the flaws, and the subsequent successful trips, but I do wonder what the general public impression is. Did the first article do more damage than the good that came from all the other trips that succeeded?
It's the last quote from Blodget that reveals the purpose of this article. The quote dismisses anyone who disputes Broder's account as simply "not normal" and that's the last word. If somebody's ego at The Times didn't get the best of him, this article would never have been published.
Welcome to the Roadster world of Top Gear mentions.
- - - Updated - - -
I think Smorg has it right when he says the whole drops range in the cold was the overall takeaway.
rlpm
S P85 | Sig X _P90D_
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?
I just read the NYT "After a Charging…" article and noticed that it (now?) explicitly states that the quotation is from stevezzzz's post dated Feb 8, and it also links directly to stevezzzz's post above (and that post references the article). So the article must have been modified. stevezzzz, did they contact you and receive your consent to quote you ex post facto?
Well, it's something I guess. They still need to update the original Broder article with an editorial comment saying 'errors in judgement were made during the trip and imprecise notes were taken. This will not necessity be representative of how owners will drive this car'.
I first got wind of this latest article last night from stevezzzz's post. From the TMC twitter account I tweeted NYT Automobiles editor James G. Cobb, whom I assume wrote the article, that we would have appreciated his reaching out to our members before quoting them. I requested that he at least link to stevezzzz's original comment so that it could be taken in context. I also pointed him to stevezzzz's follow up. So looks like he at least updated that in the article. I'm not sure how helpful that will be in print, however.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
rlpm
S P85 | Sig X _P90D_
Thank you, doug.
I doubt that they'll ever add an editorial comment to the original article, Mr. Broder's responses, or the latest article with the disguising byline. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I'll happily reiterate what others have stated: I think we owners (and soon-to-be-owners) can do our part to impress upon others how we feel about our Teslas, whether Roadster or Model S, thereby refuting these biased articles. We can welcome questions from interested people giving our honest opinions and facts about our incredible automobiles instead of being "that jerk that drives an expensive car." Tesla Time is our time to help Tesla Motors shine.
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
Good point. On balance, I think Tesla was right to go after the Times, although tempering Elon's accusations on Twitter might have been helpful. My point is, Tesla has gotten almost universally positive coverage from the media, including the NY Times a few months ago when they reviewed the car and the superchargers in CA. This could just have been an effort by the Times' Automobile editors to appear "fair and balanced" so they didn't get accused of being fanboys of Tesla. Maybe Broder was just operating under orders from his boss(es)?
- Status
