3 ms·
It's a first-person source, coming from the company itself. Thus it's inherently biased toward the company and not the best source. This is as opposed to when t
by parent5446 9y ago
It's a first-person source, coming from the company itself. Thus it's inherently biased toward the company and not the best source. This is as opposed to when the news article itself is a primary source, which is achieved by a reporter actually reporting what is happening in-person at the source of the event.
Of course, in this case it's a bit hard, since the only insight into Tesla's production goals is what they report externally, barring leaks and whatnot. A press release from the company is pretty much the best we can get. But just because it's the best doesn't mean it's necessarily good.
- dilemma 9y agoLike your second paragraph expresses, a press release id from the company itself is the absolute best source on their production numbers.
- parent5446 9y agoAnd as the very last sentence of my second paragraph says, "just because it's the best doesn't mean it's necessarily good". Your original post says "it is extremely odd to say they are not good sources".
- unepipe 9y agoYou do realize that Tesla is a publicly traded company, and what you are saying (that they would misrepresent production numbers) would be securities fraud. They publicly stated their goals: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/08/02/tesla-stays-in-the-red-but-sticks-with-rapid-model-3-production-plan/#6671009c6e47 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/08/02/tesla-st...) They did not reach their goals. No need for paranoia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud
- parent5446 9y agoWhere did I say that they misrepresented their production numbers, or committed securities fraud? In any case it's not paranoia. No matter what the law is, a press release is a first-party source. It is inherently biased toward the company. By no means should it be compared to an independent source, such as a report from an auditor or independent regulators.
- unepipe 9y agoYou said that the information regarding either production goals or production numbers from Tesla's website was "inherently biased toward the company and not the best source". Meaning the published reservations, projections or production numbers would have been misrepresented in some way to benefit the company. If they did so, that would be securities fraud, by definition. What about their projections, which were publicly stated and published in the past, or their actual production, which was publicly stated in the article (both of which are subject to SEC regulation review and legal recourse) are inherently biased toward the company?