3 ms·

This article has its fair dose of FUD, as NYTimes pertaining to tech usually are. The title sets the tone, and quoting Jalopnik as if they are credible journali

This article has its fair dose of FUD, as NYTimes pertaining to tech usually are. The title sets the tone, and quoting Jalopnik as if they are credible journalism raises some serious eyebrows. You can typically read the bias in these articles by simply looking at the spin of the first sentence of each paragraph, because it's the pauses between the paragraphs that set the poise and direction of the monologue.

hugh3 16y ago
Would you like to take issue with any specific points, or just attack the source?
- neonfunk 16y ago
  For me, it's the NYT's habit of referencing noise that they helped to create (the "soap opera") as if they were a completely impartial 3rd party; it's like they're blind to their own influence. Reminds me of a Tom Tomorrow cartoon (which I'm too lazy to find).
  - baguasquirrel 16y ago
    That more or less nails one major class of attacks. We should try not to feed the trolls (the NYTimes, in this example), so I won't address any points specifically. There are some common patterns though, and these are worth thinking about because they come straight out of drama and literature. Poise the character as a charismatic, ambitious person. Then start whittling him down. The common themes here are his moments of naivete, the femme fatale, the awful reality of the situation, what others now think of him. Note that none of these plot elements actually have much (if anything) to do with the economic viability of Tesla, and as such, the title is inappropriate. It does however, make for great rhetoric. Great narratives are rarely, if ever, the bare truth of such specific situations.
jackfoxy 16y ago
That's pretty observant. I always enjoy the media criticism in HN comments. Folks here are always looking behind the curtain. Yeah, the NY times has always had its own slant (as every source does), which is determined in large part by still having the pick of Ivy League grads who want to pursue journalism (look up the resume of this journalist, for example).

hugh3 16y ago

Would you like to take issue with any specific points, or just attack the source?

neonfunk 16y ago
For me, it's the NYT's habit of referencing noise that they helped to create (the "soap opera") as if they were a completely impartial 3rd party; it's like they're blind to their own influence. Reminds me of a Tom Tomorrow cartoon (which I'm too lazy to find).
- baguasquirrel 16y ago
  That more or less nails one major class of attacks. We should try not to feed the trolls (the NYTimes, in this example), so I won't address any points specifically. There are some common patterns though, and these are worth thinking about because they come straight out of drama and literature. Poise the character as a charismatic, ambitious person. Then start whittling him down. The common themes here are his moments of naivete, the femme fatale, the awful reality of the situation, what others now think of him. Note that none of these plot elements actually have much (if anything) to do with the economic viability of Tesla, and as such, the title is inappropriate. It does however, make for great rhetoric. Great narratives are rarely, if ever, the bare truth of such specific situations.

jackfoxy 16y ago

That's pretty observant. I always enjoy the media criticism in HN comments. Folks here are always looking behind the curtain. Yeah, the NY times has always had its own slant (as every source does), which is determined in large part by still having the pick of Ivy League grads who want to pursue journalism (look up the resume of this journalist, for example).