tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
Nooooooooooo.... what I am trying to say is, directing hate does not work. We have to find ways of being constructive, not simply attacking.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Nooooooooooo.... what I am trying to say is, directing hate does not work. We have to find ways of being constructive, not simply attacking.
Driver Dave
Member
Driver Dave
Member
I think you are being far too naive.
There are huge "paper would fail without them" dollar amounts going into papers from car companies.
There are even huger dollar amounts going into the "Tesla must fail" global mission from oil, auto, dealers, shorts.
Maybe "hate" is too strong, but a very active super strong dislike is needed against all skewed/wrong/fake information... or it will definitely win.
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
More conspiracy-thinking. Sigh. This is not constructive. Very likely a VW ad showed up there because VW wants to appear there, your cookies made whatever ad network NYT uses think you might be receptive to that ad, and so VW paid whatever ad network NYT uses to appear there. Gotta stop the knee-jerk conspiracy theories.
This. NYT is not directing a VW ad to display there for you. The ad network is, based on your personal history.
Editorial opinion is added to authors’ work without attribution. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a NYT article was published online with a somewhat neutral stance on Bernie Sanders. Subsequent to initial online publication, the editors changed the title and content, making the piece decidedly anti-Sanders.
Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?
I am not writing about Sanders. I am referring to a documented editorial process at the NYT in which the meaning of an article is changed. At that point in time, the NYT endorsed Clinton. Whether it was the desire of the editors to create a negative piece or whether the Clinton campaign leaned on them is moot. What is clear is that editors make substantive changes, including reversing the intended message of the author.
Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?
I am not writing about Sanders. I am referring to a documented editorial process at the NYT in which the meaning of an article is changed. At that point in time, the NYT endorsed Clinton. Whether it was the desire of the editors to create a negative piece or whether the Clinton campaign leaned on them is moot. What is clear is that editors make substantive changes, including reversing the intended message of the author.
Headlines are also defined by A/B testing. Open CNN.COM 10 times over the course of an hour and look at the title of the same story. It will change based on the click rate of the various headline options, most likely completely autonomously. Negative headlines get more attention than "EVs ARE AMAZING AND YOU CAN DRIVE TO VEGAS LIKE A BREEZE". Negative headlines are more likely to get someone to questions why, even though 10x that is just going to see the headline and think "EVs must suck" rather than opening it up and trying to understand the nuance. Irony being the people most likely to open it are the ones like us who know better. So, if you really want to get news orgs to change their view of Tesla and EVs, stop opening the articles with anti-ev anti-tesla headlines.
Additional reading for those interested:
How to Effectively A/B Test your Content Headlines
Esme Es Mejor
Member
I can’t stand Linette Lopez, but I don’t think attacking her— or Russ Mitchell or Neal Boudette— does any good. She’s too far gone to change her views, and the attacks just let her paint herself as a victim— and some naive people will fall for it.
If you have a chance to respectfully point out when she (or they) are factually inaccurate, that can be helpful. It won’t change her (or Russ or Neal), but it could persuade some readers.
Driver Dave
Member
Wait... you have to understand how the car sections in papers work. They aren't like the other sections.
This is not conspiracy thinking. This is just normal how papers work.
Here is an example:
Boston Globe has a car article:
https://www.boston.com/cars/car-rev...think-sedans-are-dead-check-out-the-new-civic
You think, ain't that nice, a nice review on a nice car.
But look at bottom:
©2019 Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC
Wait, what is that? what is Boston Globe Media Partners?
https://www.bostonglobemedia.com
So that is not really boston globe editorial, that is the seperate boston globe ad company llc in charge of selling ads.
Why do they have a copyright on the article?
Because they make the content. They are in charge of making ads, and making content to get people to the ads.
Not conspiracy. That is how car sections in papers work.
Now with the Times, it is not as clear cut as the Globe makes it. It is a little blurrier. Sometimes articles are in "Wheels" (possibly like the Cars section of the globe, run by the ad business) other times in "Business"
But make no doubt, it is the same grey area between car ads and car content going on.
Not conspiracy. Just business reality for the papers.
At least Boston Globe is clear about it. Others aren't.
And the ad networks are pretty stupid. I googled a bit before buying my (not anylonger) new laptop. For atleast two years I have been getting ads for new laptops. In a time when I'm definately not in the market for one. Since I just bought one.
Generic ads for anything else would have been smarter. I might have clicked one. I definately do not click on ads for new laptops. I'm more in the market for anything else but laptops. How stupid can ads get? Pretty stupid IMHO...
If Tesla were buying ads I problably would get lots of Tesla ads now with a 6 months new car...
yeah that’s a great point. they really do seem to respond reasonably when you setup via app
three times i’ve done so, and they either texted or called all three (two of which sorta demanded a human being help drill down further into the problem, but the third was routine and i still got a text back)...i believe the initial responses were within 2 days.
The VW part is not the important part of the screenshot. The story unleashed onto unsuspecting readers educating them that generally electric cars take 5 hours of extra charging on a simple trip that many have done in their gas car before, is the real scandal.
I'm surprised that anyone could witness the appalling disinformation campaign against Tesla in major media during the last few months and then dismiss the idea of Tesla enemies as "theories." Theorizing is not required, only direct observation.
A piece about EV charging that doesn't mention Tesla is like a piece about discovery of the lightbulb that doesn't mention Thomas Edison. You said the journalist did mention Tesla but the editors cut out that part. Why do you think that is? To better educate the public?
I thought everyone knew that ad-supported media are in the business of selling audiences to advertisers. Auto majors advertise; Tesla doesn't. What kind of theorizing is required here?
I think you don't understand what a stupendous threat Tesla is becoming to Big Auto and Big Oil. When people's livelihoods are threatened, they go to war. The war against Tesla is just beginning, and it is "not constructive" to deny reality.
Another point about the (new) media, your comment/correction can get a massive amount of exposure. I made a short comment on the Top Gear piece that the battery was only 57% charged for the drag race and it has had around four thousand views. So it is definitely worth commenting - it helps balance the TSLAQ crackpot theories out there.
Meant it as a joke, may have missed the mark.
Long ago I worked for a vendor that sold production hardware and software to some major newspapers. I was astounded and amused to hear the terminology of “news hole”. They sell ads, which pay for the newspaper, and what is left is that news hole, some space that they have to fill with that newsy stuff whatever who cares. When you wrap your head around the news business, you understand that the news is not the purpose, and the subscriber is not the customer. The customers are the advertisers, and the subscribers are the product they are selling to the real customers. The technology of on-line news now makes it even easier to customize the stuff in that news hole to better sell to the real customers.
Don’t get me wrong, there are real journalists of integrity out there, but they are at a huge disadvantage with the advertising business model and now the ability to tailor both the headline and the content without the consent of the journalist, and even customize it for the demographics of the audience.
This is a really dumb thing for news organizations to do. If you are deliberately optimizing for "high click" headlines, you are optimizing for destroying your own reputation by getting a reputation for lying, dishonest headlines. Not all publicity is good publicity; getting a reputation as liars, frauds, and cheats is, in fact, bad publicity.
Before doing A/B testing, you need someone to remove all the dishonest headlines from your list of options.
Reputation matters and the NYT is trying to kill its own reputation with stunts like this.
Yeeowch. The editors interfered with a solid, neutral, well-reported article to insert two paragaphs of disparaging personal opinions of the editors (like " Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun," -- complete BS).
I didn't know about this one. That's really bad behavior by NYT editors. Of course they're doing it again...
...and they eliminated the public editor position.
NYT is not a respectable publication any more. I'll take the Guardian any day; when they publish a piece which is negative about EVs, at least it's a reporter saying what they think (and admitting it), not an editor hacking their piece up to say the opposite of what it originally said.
There are mentions of Tesla but only to say that John DeLancie stopped in his Tesla at a charger which said it would take 5 hours and complained (following which he moved to a charger which worked.... and the article does not say how quickly that charged).
This is a hit piece.
The headline, the strapline, the entire piece is sending the message "electric cars are hard to use and slow to charge" and it's just flat out false. Tremendous effort has been made to eliminate any description of the normal electric car experience, and someone (whether reporter or editor) had to go to a great deal of trouble to eliminate any reference to the normal electric car experience.
This had to be done consciously, by someone. Nobody who talked to any meaningful number of EV owners could fail to include the normal electric car experience unless they did so *intentionally*. It could have been the reporter, but it sounds like it was the editors, carefully cutting out all paragraphs which talked about normal electric car driving, and only leaving the ones which made it sound difficult.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
