What does the New York Times have against Telsa?

[artsci]

I know that the Broder incident was a major embarrassment to the Times but is that kind of mistake the basis for the continuing grudge the Times appears to have? Case in point. Today's issue (Automobiles) has a major story on touch screens. Tesla gets two paragraphs consisting largely of an interview with an owner. One would conclude from reading the story that Tesla is just another bit player in touchscreen arena. To make matters worse, there's a photo of a dinky Ford Sync 3 touchscreen, which pales in comparison to Tesla's.

As one of the world's most reputable news sources it's very troubling to know that that Times holds grudges against those who have called its bluff. One has to wonder how the rest of its reporting is similarly affected.

As a life long Times subscriber I have to admit to being very troubled.

 

[jerry33]

My assumption would be: it's advertising dollars. "He who pays, says".

 

[CHGolferJim]

People who don't share the Times editorial page perspective have wondered about this for decades. While there seems to be some degree of separation between the editorial and reporting editors at the Times and Wall St. Journal, etc., you can't help but wonder how the "tone" affects their reporting.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Since when have newspapers been reputable news sources? They're businesses out to make money and, as the saying goes, they don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. There's a very long history of media being used to manipulate public opinion.

The Internet squeeze has made the research and writing worse, but it hasn't changed the fundamental ethic of the business.

 

[arondaniel]

"But moves that may be convenient for a tablet user lying on a couch can be deadly for drivers.
Tesla Model S owners, for example, can view a reverse camera angle of the car while driving forward..."

Lol! So the little Tesla mention is also in the context of conveniences turned deadly?! I thought assertions were supposed to be backed up with relevant supporting information?

 

[robby]

That article is written by John Quain, a Fox News Contributor and rabid anti-Tesla propagandist. For fun, I searched all his mentions of "Tesla" on Twitter. Here they are:

John Quain on Twitter:
John Quain on Twitter:
John Quain on Twitter:
John Quain on Twitter:

Whether it's bashing the stock, siding with John Broder against facts, incorrectly blaming Tesla for unrelated garage fires or I kid you not, whining about having to move his car from a construction area, he makes sure never to mention Tesla unless he is downplaying, complaining or naysaying.

It's a blemish on the Times that it allows people like this do its reporting, but take solace in the fact that the product speaks for and advertises itself, and all the Quains and Broders in the world won't be able to hide what is clearly a more efficient, more performant, more ethical, more safe, all around superior technology.

 

[ThosEM]

"But moves that may be convenient for a tablet user lying on a couch can be deadly for drivers.
Tesla Model S owners, for example, can view a reverse camera angle of the car while driving forward..."

Lol! So the little Tesla mention is also in the context of conveniences turned deadly?! I thought assertions were supposed to be backed up with relevant supporting information?

Yeah, I've heard some cars are even coming out with REAR VIEW MIRRORS!? Can you believe it? That sounds extremely dangerous!

 

[wycolo]

Its been: "All the news that fits" since way back in the 70s. Paugh! :tongue:

> As one of the world's most reputable news sources [artsci]

 

[Doug_G]

Lol! So the little Tesla mention is also in the context of conveniences turned deadly?! I thought assertions were supposed to be backed up with relevant supporting information?

I find that rear view display to be very helpful and a safety advantage of the car. It really helps cover the blind spots.

 

[thedaysbetween]

Ever since the Times clearly encouraged biased reporting on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax of 2006, http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/03/overall-case-narrative.html I have ignored all of their reporting. Really.

 

[Jaff]

+1...in the early days of driving my Roadster, when in heavy traffic, I would leave the rear view camera on a lot to cover off the blind spots...was very happy to see the same strategy could be used in the Model S...

I find that rear view display to be very helpful and a safety advantage of the car. It really helps cover the blind spots.

 

[flankspeed8]

That article is written by John Quain, a Fox News Contributor

Wow. He must be evil then. sigh... Why the need to bring Fox into this. The OP was referring to an article written in the NYT. Supposedly America's paper of record...

 

[spark32a]

My assumption would be: it's advertising dollars. "He who pays, says".

Exactly. I guess they will start writing nice articles once Tesla starts paying for them.

 

[David_Cary]

I know that the Broder incident was a major embarrassment to the Times but is that kind of mistake the basis for the continuing grudge the Times appears to have? Case in point. Today's issue (Automobiles) has a major story on touch screens. Tesla gets two paragraphs consisting largely of an interview with an owner. One would conclude from reading the story that Tesla is just another bit player in touchscreen arena. To make matters worse, there's a photo of a dinky Ford Sync 3 touchscreen, which pales in comparison to Tesla's.

As one of the world's most reputable news sources it's very troubling to know that that Times holds grudges against those who have called its bluff. One has to wonder how the rest of its reporting is similarly affected.

As a life long Times subscriber I have to admit to being very troubled.

I just have to laugh at "As one of the world's most reputable news sources". NYT is a joke. Usually a far left viewpoint of the world.

The NYT and the WSJ are just opposite ends of horrible biased reporting. Everything in both of them have to be read with this background. Interesting how they both "hate" Tesla.

 

[robby]

Wow. He must be evil then. sigh... Why the need to bring Fox into this. The OP was referring to an article written in the NYT. Supposedly America's paper of record...

My implication wasn't that he's evil, just that he shares Fox's dismissive viewpoint on green energy and EVs to the extent that they'd call on him to be a contributor.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

I gave the NYT journalist a number of examples of how the Tesla touch screen takes it to a higher level. We spoke for at least 15 minutes, and he was quite familiar with the Model S. I'm surprised that "larger buttons" was the bit he used. We discussed many more important features. This journalist does many of the high-end car reviews for the Times, including Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.

I would not go so far as to say that he had something against Tesla. This may simply be a case of Tesla's extraordinary media attention working against the company, causing journalists and editors at prestigious publications to tone down their enthusiasm. The fact that he started with Ford's example supports this theory. And of course, Ford will be relevant to many more Times readers than would Tesla.

 

[purplewalt]

My implication wasn't that he's evil, just that he shares Fox's dismissive viewpoint on green energy and EVs to the extent that they'd call on him to be a contributor.

Agreed.

TRUE News should be able to pass the objectivity test.
If a news organization just reports the full facts, and doesn't have ulterior motives: great.
If it is not NEWS, call it what it is: ENTERTAINMENT.

Reviewing a writer's past performances and affiliations evidently does play into the larger understanding of the writer's/contributor's biases.
And no, the writers do not turn those biases off and on.

Authentic Journalism is nearly dead due to many writer's lack of true research and their slanted thinking.
Yellow Journalism has a long and storied history.
It has started wars, and provoked a lot of mis-guided thinking.

Happy reading, just be careful of the sources you choose to rely on.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

I gave the NYT journalist a number of examples of how the Tesla touch screen takes it to a higher level. We spoke for at least 15 minutes, and he was quite familiar with the Model S. I'm surprised that "larger buttons" was the bit he used. We discussed many more important features. This journalist does many of the high-end car reviews for the Times, including Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.

I would not go so far as to say that he had something against Tesla. This may simply be a case of Tesla's extraordinary media attention working against the company, causing journalists and editors at prestigious publications to tone down their enthusiasm.

Thanks for doing your bit, Todd.

Yeah, I agree that Tesla's rapid success has probably worked against it in some quarters. If anything, a far-left outfit such as the NYT should actually be a flag bearer for a green startup.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

And, I think Tesla's still perceived as a company that makes toys for rich people. To a large extent, that's a legitimate portrayal. Once Model 3 comes along, outfits such as the NYT may jump on the bandwagon.

 

[robby]

I would not go so far as to say that he had something against Tesla. This may simply be a case of Tesla's extraordinary media attention working against the company, causing journalists and editors at prestigious publications to tone down their enthusiasm. The fact that he started with Ford's example supports this theory. And of course, Ford will be relevant to many more Times readers than would Tesla.

John Gruber described this very well in a piece called "Bending Over Backwards." It was about Walt Mossberg's review of the iPad 2, in which Mossberg tried desperately to find faults with it in order to feign objectivity. But in reality it just made for a biased review of what was clearly the superior product:

Walt Mossberg has a 500-word section on “Drawbacks” in his review today of the iPad 2. The whole thing is a crock, an example of trying to be fair/balanced/objective by bending over backwards to find negative things to say about the device.
[...]
Stating the plain truth, that the iPad 2 has no serious competition as a mainstream consumer device, doesn’t make you biased. It makes you accurate.

The same is true for Tesla in the EV market today. Pretending that a high performance hybrid, or a half-the-range half-the-size urban vehicle, or in this case, a 7" touchscreen is comparable to what Tesla offers is just plainly, at the surface, false. I have no issue when a journalist complains that it's expensive, ostentatious, etc, but don't miss the irony of lying for the sake of appearing responsible.

Daring Fireball: Bending Over Backwards