5 ms·

Just like you can get a patent on anything by adding "with a computer" you can get traction for any news story by adding "in a tesla" to it. A fire in any car w

Just like you can get a patent on anything by adding "with a computer" you can get traction for any news story by adding "in a tesla" to it. A fire in any car would be horrifying, but it's not really that newsworthy. Gas cars catch on fire all the time. Dubai - car catches on fire twice! https://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/car-catches-fire-twice-at-dubai-petrol-station-1.95799 https://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/car-catches-fire-tw... Didn't quite make the us news. Cars catch on fire at amusement park, Teslas apparently not involved http://abc11.com/several-cars-catch-fire-in-parking-lot-of-carowinds-/3638472/ http://abc11.com/several-cars-catch-fire-in-parking-lot-of-c...

joshlegs 8y ago
Ok, so former reporter here. There are several 'criteria for newsworthiness'. One of them is novelty. Another is general public interest. And there is substantial general public interest in Tesla as a whole, since it is doing new things. Additionally, many of the things Tesla is trying is also novel. So that is two things right off the bat that make basically anything that happens there newsworthy to some degree. I get that people like to say "oh the media is just reporting on this failure because it's Tesla and they want them to fail," but to hold that view is to misunderstand the nature of news in general. Pieces like this aren't inherently "anti-Tesla", (which is what I am admittedly inferring you're getting at with your comment). But the fact that this is a new thing that humankind is experimenting with makes it newsworthy, and that includes its failures and successes. I also admittedly didn't read the article yet :)
- Isinlor 8y ago
  Then reporters should emphasize baselines. Otherwise this type of reporting misleads people and reporters are to blame for it. It is a "fake news" tough not necessarily any single report is false.
- sneak 8y ago
  If your criteria allow for this sort of handwaving nonsense, your criteria may be wrong.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Eech0Shu 8y ago
  Is a battery fire one of "tesla's failures" even though most other cars burn too? Is it statistically exceptionally common for tesla cars to burn?
  - danso 8y ago
    The story is about the findings initiated by a NTSB investigation. You can see the current list of ongoing investigations here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations.aspx?office=Highway https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations...
- eganist 8y ago
  This is the clickbait approach to journalism. Investigative and traditional news journalism will still focus on unusual deltas or events — and in this case, those deltas should be in Tesla's favor. A good example of newsworthiness might be if firefighters failed to put out a battery fire or if the NTSB (edited from NHTSA) focused on a particular incident for some reason, e.g. to learn and see how this event is being handled versus others. "Tesla on fire" isn't newsworthy. "NTSB monitoring emergency response to Tesla car fire" probably is. (edited from NHTSA. Source release: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180509.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180509.as...) "Tesla batteries catch on fire [more or less] frequently than gas cars" is newsworthy. It may even be worthy of further investigation in either event. "Tesla on fire" isn't newsworthy.
  - danso 8y ago
    Then would you call the NTSB investigation a "clickbait" investigation? They are the ones who initiated the investigation that is being reported on right now. How unusual/newsworthy is a NTSB investigation? You can look at their list of major highway investigations right here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations.aspx?office=Highway https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations... There are about 50 ongoing investigations since 2016. Of those, Tesla is the subject of 4 of them: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH004.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH004.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH011.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH011.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY17FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY17FH013.aspx By my informal count, Tesla seems to have the most NTSB investigations of any individual automaker right now, given that many of the NTSB highway investigations involve bus and train accidents.
    - Ironchefpython 8y ago
      Honestly, I would expect the NTSB to investigate any kind of accident involving rare or new technology. I'd expect to see them investigate a higher percentage of accidents involving electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles until those technologies are safe enough and proven enough that you get diminishing returns from the investigations.
- ovao 8y ago
  While true that Tesla is attempting novel things — and sometimes falling short of success — there is nothing particularly novel about a car fire. They aren't particularly widespread, but neither are they incredibly rare. I think without another element to the story that's notable, novel or otherwise interesting, I think it falls short of the criteria for meaningful reporting and falls into the realm of sensationalism. It may not be specifically or deliberately "anti-Tesla", but that doesn't mean it's not sensationalist.
sandworm101 8y ago
Electric cars are a different beast in terms of fire. Fire crews know how to put out a conventional fire. Remove the fuel and/or source of ignition and fire is out. Drain the tank, disconnect the battery terminals, and it is safe to haul away. A battery fire is different. You can never really remove the energy potential without discharging the batteries, something that cannot reasonably be done at an accident scene. So the wrecked Tesla is a different animal, something more newsworthy, than a standard wreck. I read about a concept car that was going to integrate capacitors into its carbon fiber frame. High electrical potentials, encased in a mesh of carbon, doing 100kph down a public road. What could possibly go wrong? I think more boom than burn.
mc32 8y ago
Moreover, you don’t see “Mercedes-Benz” or “Range Rover” ignites twice in a title. It would be “Sedan” or “SUV” ignited twice. Here I’d be okay with “electric vehicle” catches fire twice or something to that effect.
- eurticket 8y ago
  I think that isn't being very truthful to the fact that Tesla owns a huge market share of electric vehicles and that these are problems that affect the big player. If Ford, Honda, Chevy, Suzuki... had problems that made people questions the very keystone of the technology that their product was, the possibility of an unsafe product, you're wrong that it wouldn't be in the title, and doubly so if it was such a key player in their niche. I like Tesla, but everytime something bad happens to Elons company people fall in line of saying well this wouldn't happen to x or y or talked about in the media the same way. Without ever considering it isn't a problem if the companies referenced were all considered on equal terms. This is the price Elon is paying for not having a dedicated marketing team and also being innovative.
- mmt 8y ago
  > Moreover, you don’t see “Mercedes-Benz” or “Range Rover” ignites twice in a title. However, I think one might if it were just a bit more exotic, like a Ferrari. More importantly, if, e.g., Mercedes had recently been making headlines (arguably through their own efforts) about their new [1] hydrogen-fuel-cell technology, and it was that technology that was catching fire twice, I'm pretty sure we'd see their brand name in the title. [1] fictional/hypothetical, for the purposes of this thought experiment
  - mc32 8y ago
    That's fair. It still seems like the media like putting Tesla in a negative light, if for nothing else for eyeballs. So even though a particular issue is not statistically abnormal, they'll print away either for eyeballs or to slight Musk because he doesn't play by their expected rules.
falcolas 8y ago
Err, most cars don't catch fire days after they were in an accident. That's the scary part. Electric vehicles require additional specialized handling after a crash. Who provides that training? Who provides the equipment and consumables for that special handling? Who covers that cost? Very important factors which play into the lifespan of an electric car, factors which need to be discussed.
- Latteland 8y ago
  Except it does happen, eventually. It doesn't happen to teslas much either. Web search found this stack exchange article "Catalytic converter - ... and as he was driving down the hill a few days later it caught fire" https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/car-crash-when-does-a-car-catch-fir" https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/car-crash... Amusingly the same story about the tesla as in this article comes up over and over again in different reports of the same incident.

joshlegs 8y ago

Ok, so former reporter here. There are several 'criteria for newsworthiness'. One of them is novelty. Another is general public interest. And there is substantial general public interest in Tesla as a whole, since it is doing new things. Additionally, many of the things Tesla is trying is also novel. So that is two things right off the bat that make basically anything that happens there newsworthy to some degree. I get that people like to say "oh the media is just reporting on this failure because it's Tesla and they want them to fail," but to hold that view is to misunderstand the nature of news in general. Pieces like this aren't inherently "anti-Tesla", (which is what I am admittedly inferring you're getting at with your comment). But the fact that this is a new thing that humankind is experimenting with makes it newsworthy, and that includes its failures and successes. I also admittedly didn't read the article yet :)

Isinlor 8y ago
Then reporters should emphasize baselines. Otherwise this type of reporting misleads people and reporters are to blame for it. It is a "fake news" tough not necessarily any single report is false.
sneak 8y ago
If your criteria allow for this sort of handwaving nonsense, your criteria may be wrong.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Eech0Shu 8y ago
Is a battery fire one of "tesla's failures" even though most other cars burn too? Is it statistically exceptionally common for tesla cars to burn?
- danso 8y ago
  The story is about the findings initiated by a NTSB investigation. You can see the current list of ongoing investigations here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations.aspx?office=Highway https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations...
eganist 8y ago
This is the clickbait approach to journalism. Investigative and traditional news journalism will still focus on unusual deltas or events — and in this case, those deltas should be in Tesla's favor. A good example of newsworthiness might be if firefighters failed to put out a battery fire or if the NTSB (edited from NHTSA) focused on a particular incident for some reason, e.g. to learn and see how this event is being handled versus others. "Tesla on fire" isn't newsworthy. "NTSB monitoring emergency response to Tesla car fire" probably is. (edited from NHTSA. Source release: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180509.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180509.as...) "Tesla batteries catch on fire [more or less] frequently than gas cars" is newsworthy. It may even be worthy of further investigation in either event. "Tesla on fire" isn't newsworthy.
- danso 8y ago
  Then would you call the NTSB investigation a "clickbait" investigation? They are the ones who initiated the investigation that is being reported on right now. How unusual/newsworthy is a NTSB investigation? You can look at their list of major highway investigations right here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations.aspx?office=Highway https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/All-Investigations... There are about 50 ongoing investigations since 2016. Of those, Tesla is the subject of 4 of them: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH004.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH004.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH011.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH011.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY17FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY17FH013.aspx By my informal count, Tesla seems to have the most NTSB investigations of any individual automaker right now, given that many of the NTSB highway investigations involve bus and train accidents.
  - Ironchefpython 8y ago
    Honestly, I would expect the NTSB to investigate any kind of accident involving rare or new technology. I'd expect to see them investigate a higher percentage of accidents involving electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles until those technologies are safe enough and proven enough that you get diminishing returns from the investigations.
ovao 8y ago
While true that Tesla is attempting novel things — and sometimes falling short of success — there is nothing particularly novel about a car fire. They aren't particularly widespread, but neither are they incredibly rare. I think without another element to the story that's notable, novel or otherwise interesting, I think it falls short of the criteria for meaningful reporting and falls into the realm of sensationalism. It may not be specifically or deliberately "anti-Tesla", but that doesn't mean it's not sensationalist.

sandworm101 8y ago

Electric cars are a different beast in terms of fire. Fire crews know how to put out a conventional fire. Remove the fuel and/or source of ignition and fire is out. Drain the tank, disconnect the battery terminals, and it is safe to haul away. A battery fire is different. You can never really remove the energy potential without discharging the batteries, something that cannot reasonably be done at an accident scene. So the wrecked Tesla is a different animal, something more newsworthy, than a standard wreck. I read about a concept car that was going to integrate capacitors into its carbon fiber frame. High electrical potentials, encased in a mesh of carbon, doing 100kph down a public road. What could possibly go wrong? I think more boom than burn.

mc32 8y ago

Moreover, you don’t see “Mercedes-Benz” or “Range Rover” ignites twice in a title. It would be “Sedan” or “SUV” ignited twice. Here I’d be okay with “electric vehicle” catches fire twice or something to that effect.

eurticket 8y ago
I think that isn't being very truthful to the fact that Tesla owns a huge market share of electric vehicles and that these are problems that affect the big player. If Ford, Honda, Chevy, Suzuki... had problems that made people questions the very keystone of the technology that their product was, the possibility of an unsafe product, you're wrong that it wouldn't be in the title, and doubly so if it was such a key player in their niche. I like Tesla, but everytime something bad happens to Elons company people fall in line of saying well this wouldn't happen to x or y or talked about in the media the same way. Without ever considering it isn't a problem if the companies referenced were all considered on equal terms. This is the price Elon is paying for not having a dedicated marketing team and also being innovative.
mmt 8y ago
> Moreover, you don’t see “Mercedes-Benz” or “Range Rover” ignites twice in a title. However, I think one might if it were just a bit more exotic, like a Ferrari. More importantly, if, e.g., Mercedes had recently been making headlines (arguably through their own efforts) about their new [1] hydrogen-fuel-cell technology, and it was that technology that was catching fire twice, I'm pretty sure we'd see their brand name in the title. [1] fictional/hypothetical, for the purposes of this thought experiment
- mc32 8y ago
  That's fair. It still seems like the media like putting Tesla in a negative light, if for nothing else for eyeballs. So even though a particular issue is not statistically abnormal, they'll print away either for eyeballs or to slight Musk because he doesn't play by their expected rules.

falcolas 8y ago

Err, most cars don't catch fire days after they were in an accident. That's the scary part. Electric vehicles require additional specialized handling after a crash. Who provides that training? Who provides the equipment and consumables for that special handling? Who covers that cost? Very important factors which play into the lifespan of an electric car, factors which need to be discussed.

Latteland 8y ago
Except it does happen, eventually. It doesn't happen to teslas much either. Web search found this stack exchange article "Catalytic converter - ... and as he was driving down the hill a few days later it caught fire" https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/car-crash-when-does-a-car-catch-fir" https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/4010/car-crash... Amusingly the same story about the tesla as in this article comes up over and over again in different reports of the same incident.