jbherman
Member
I noticed the byline, also. What a bunch of spineless, egotistical, and childish cowards!
-
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
I noticed the byline, also. What a bunch of spineless, egotistical, and childish cowards!
NigelM
Recovering Member
In fairness, I'd forgive the use of online quotes as this latest article is an attempt to look at the online debate; however, there's a strong bias to make it look bad for Tesla and my opinion of the NYT has gone way down. They are clearly not going to acknowledge any responsibility on Broder's part and are instead circling the wagons to protect their own.
My advice to Tesla would be to take the high road, give this no more attention than it deserves and move on. NYT editors are bad losers.
I'll continue to drive my Tesla and tell others about it every day; I've cancelled my NYT subscription.
My advice to Tesla would be to take the high road, give this no more attention than it deserves and move on. NYT editors are bad losers.
I'll continue to drive my Tesla and tell others about it every day; I've cancelled my NYT subscription.
jbherman
Member
IMO, the NYT editorial response and continued attention to this non-story is as bad, if not worse, than Broder's original flawed review. Sour grapes and nothing more...not professional and not becoming of what is perceived by many as one of the leading news organizations in the US. Moving forward, I will find it difficult to read the NYT's reports without a high degree of skepticism and will likely try to corroborate or source my news elsewhere.
Last edited:
I agree. I can forgive them getting surprised by an unethical or sloppy at best reporter. Even the initial support from the editor but the halfhearted response from the editor and now this latest weak attempt from the times shows that egos were bruised over there as well and they mean to punish Tesla.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
This points out that we have to keep in mind how we post our thoughts here. We need to realize that what we write is always under scrutiny. Not that we need to censor ourselves or only say nice things about Tesla, but that we should try to do so in a way that pulling statements out of context isn't as easy. There are people with an anti-Tesla agenda that comb through the forums looking for ammunition to use, I encounter these people on Seeking Alpha for example quite often. I would not be surprised if some of those people fed the NYT the data.
Good advice in my opinion. I too am getting tired of this story.
Somehow we need to inform more people just how wonderful EVs and PHEVs are right now, and work on improving charging infrastructure and EV range and value even more.
GSP
That's a really fine line though. You could write something like
"I'm really frustrated. I just got my car and already have a big problem. It appears there is a software glitch that makes it so the album art doesn't appear correctly all the time" gets picked up as ""I'm really frustrated. I just got my car and already have a big problem." in a list of other similar quotes. It's a no win situation with people taking things out of context on purpose.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Interesting take by Christian Science Monitor: Tesla-Motors-vs.-New-York-Times-what-it-says-about-decarbonizing-transportation
I disagree with some of their points but they do at least try to take a balanced approach.
I disagree with some of their points but they do at least try to take a balanced approach.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
True, but say in this specific case, if you stop and think, is album art really a "big problem"? "Minor issue, album art not displaying properly, any easy fixes yet available?"
In the specific NYT case I think some people were too quick to take what Mr. Broder reported at face value and blame Tesla and the car. Obviously there is a fine line between giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions and becoming a bunch of sycophants, but we've all seen enough anti-Tesla bias that I think it's worth considering how we express ourselves so as not to add to it.
I agree that isn't a big problem but just used as an example. One person's minor annoyance is another person's deal breaker as we've seen. Anyway, point was they can take just part of a quote to serve their purpose. Classic tactic in political adds all the time.
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 don't know. Maybe I'll start a blog and just copy and paste sentences from the NYT and not even ask permission. Wonder how that will work out? There is a generic copyright on the bottom of TMC, apparently doesn't do very well. But all things printed in the USA are immediately copyrighted. Taking a written paragraph, and reusing it (even if attributing it), especially for monetary gain is exactly what copyright is supposed to STOP! I highly doubt this would constitute 'fair use'. Their article is basically just a composition of quotes they got for free and then selling them. The NYT is treating this forum like it is a big space open to anybody and everyone is shouting their opinions. But that isn't the case.
The best idea here.
The problem is there isn't any substance to the new NYT article. It is basically just stealing a bunch of quotes and then selling them. This is in my opinion the worst action that the NYT has done this whole saga. How could they have known the Broder piece wasn't really done well. Their response to the Tesla data, was about what I expected. It basically said Broder is an idiot and/or bad at his job. I don't think Broder did enough to get fired. Reprimanded sure but not fired. I think his credibility still took a pretty big hit. This whole piece seems to be trying to get Broder's and the NYT's reputation shining bright, and is a bad misrepresentation.
Exactly!
And I did add a line to my signature. Not sure it will help, but I bet they won't cherry pick my quotes.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think my above wording of the same issue would be hard to spin, but yes anything can be taken out of context. Looking back over the early pages of this thread most people were focused on the overnight loss of range, something we all expect will be reduced, but most people completely ignored or glossed over why that loss of range even became a problem, the fact that the car was never properly charged, not even a simple full Standard charge at the second stop, which would have avoided all this mess. The "prime mover" of this entire event was a failure to properly operate the vehicle on a very basic level. This was always the most important fact that got buried in some finger pointing at Tesla for the overnight loss of range, which we know isn't as bad as it appears and we know is being worked on and should be vastly reduced when Sleep Mode is returned.
I think it is nice that NYT is saying it quotes the TESLA MOTORS CLUB. This will send people towards here, and even the most sceptical will soon ddiscover what rubish they where writing!
What some people can do that where quoted, is the right to publish an open answer in the NYT! And if not, send your open letters to other newspapers!
By misquoting you they are not only attacking Tesla, but you too!
What some people can do that where quoted, is the right to publish an open answer in the NYT! And if not, send your open letters to other newspapers!
By misquoting you they are not only attacking Tesla, but you too!
kgb
Member
dsm363 said:
There is a list of alternate products you should avoid too. The NYT is not just the NYT, it is also the Boston Globe
List of assets owned by The New York Times Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Well there is quoting out of context and then there is complete word manipulation. They could also pull out individual letters and form any words they want, or just make it up completely, but a quick look at the actual source would show that to be the lie it is. In this latest article there was little manipulation needed because of the way the posts were written to begin with. People will bash Tesla regardless, I just think we can reduce the chance of handing them the bat.
Here's a question.
What if the NYT does another one of these hit pieces next week? At what point should Tesla step in? This is a serious battle for credibility. Elon's "acceptance of the NYT apology" likely ruffled some feathers. Now the NYT wants the last word. Both giants have a lot at stake here. Which one will blink?
On the other thread I suggested we use the term Tesla's Media Black Box from now on.
- - - Updated - - -
What if the NYT does another one of these hit pieces next week? At what point should Tesla step in? This is a serious battle for credibility. Elon's "acceptance of the NYT apology" likely ruffled some feathers. Now the NYT wants the last word. Both giants have a lot at stake here. Which one will blink?
On the other thread I suggested we use the term Tesla's Media Black Box from now on.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh I agree, it's just impossible. Mostly because of what just happened to Stevzzz He had an thought, shared it, learned more information, altered his view and then was quoted for his first thought. Nothing you can do.
- Status
