4 ms·
Let's look at the third one you linked as an example. It's the one I referred to in my initial comment: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR201805
by eganist 8y ago
Let's look at the third one you linked as an example. It's the one I referred to in my initial comment:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180509.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180509.as...
(Investigation page https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH013.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pages/HWY18FH013.aspx)
The focus is on the response because the fire isn't the kind of fire most response teams are used to dealing with. It's not necessarily focused on the car.
Clickbaiting is a legitimate though devious tactic. Per my comment referencing one of the same examples you cited, I wouldn't consider it clickbait to focus on the investigation when the investigation's true intent is highlighted. "NTSB investigating response to Tesla crash" and "NTSB investigating Tesla crash" are vastly, vastly different.
I went ahead and edited one of your examples into my post. Thanks for finding it; I was wondering why I wasn't able to dig it up while searching for NHTSA.
- danso 8y agoTo be fair, the original title of the submitted article (likely truncated to fit HN's 80-char limit) contains the context of NTSB: "New NTSB Tesla fatal crash report: Model S battery reignited twice after Florida crash"
- eganist 8y agoThis is newsworthy when you consider that this is extremely unlikely to happen with gas fires. And considering that my comment may have appeared to critique the story itself (even though my comment was a critique of its parent and not of the actual story), it's a fair point to make, so thanks.