8 ms·

"Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, a

by Puer 8y ago

"Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reputable sources for business journalism. Claiming that they would publish this article without proper vetting is ridiculous and equating it to "fake news" is shameful.

seldon999 8y ago
A few months ago the WSJ reported that the aerospace supplier Woodward was in talks to be acquired by Boeing. [1] After the market closed, Woodward came out and categorically denied the WSJ's report, saying that it was not in talks. Period. Its not necessarily nefarious, but the WSJ does in fact publish stories that rely on questionable sources. It's absolutely not out of the question that that could have happened here as well. Note that since [1] was published, Woodward has not been acquired by Boeing, and its stock took a dive after the WSJ's poorly sourced story caused the stock to shoot up ~10% when it published. A lot of people that bought it on the WSJ's bad report lost a lot of money. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospace-parts-maker-woodward-1518104707 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospac...
- Puer 8y ago
  Just because the company denied the report it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't true. Companies deny things all the time in accordance to whatever suits their current interests. "Several hours after The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks, Woodward issued a news release saying that it “is not in discussions with Boeing over a possible acquisition of Woodward... After the statement, the people familiar with the matter said the companies remained in talks." The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. There's no doubt that the vetting process for industry sources is extensive. Remember when a right wing group tried to approach the Washington Post with a fake story and how quickly they were able to expose it? It's entirely possible for sources to give occasionally incorrect or unreliable information based on changing events, but the notion that the WSJ consistently relies on "questionable sources" is ignorant of how extensive the process is. Just because it isn't transparent (which is precisely to protect the quality of their sources) it doesn't mean it isn't reliable.
  - dnomad 8y ago
    > The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. This is a bullshit appeal to authority. Let's be very clear about the process: * The WSJ reports the claims of anonymous sources. It bases entire reports off these claims and makes no effort to provide verifiable evidence of what it is reporting. * When called on the sordid affair the WSJ and its defenders insist the paper is a serious journalist effort. This happens over and over at major American newspapers to the extreme detriment of the American people. And yet, here we are again in 2018. Here's an idea: instead of appealing to authority why not provide evidence? Why not make the sources go on record? Or provide verifiable evidence of the source's anonymous claims? Isn't this what journalism actually is?
    - pvg 8y ago
      The sources are not anonymous to the WSJ. They're not publishing random uncorroborated things.
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        The source may not be anonymous to the WSJ (we the readers have no insight as to whether or not the source was anonymous), but articles like this where WSJ was unable to find a second source shouldn't be published as journalism. Uncorroborated hearsay does not make for a proper, publishable news article.
        pvg 8y ago
        That's why they don't publish 'uncorroborated hearsay'. You are just calling it that. We the readers have a pretty decent idea what standards major newspapers adhere to. It's a minor exercise in reading to get familiar with them if you personally happen not to be.
        Puer 8y ago
        It's disingenuous to associate yourself as a "reader" when you evidently didn't read the article carefully: "Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." The second source the WSJ found was Tesla itself. Uninformed assertion does not make for a proper, useful Hacker News comment.
- Animats 8y ago
  About half of all big deals that are announced in the press don't close. They collapse for lots of reasons.
  - Gigablah 8y ago
    Not sure what that has to do with this case. It wasn't announced, WSJ reported a rumor.
  - seldonnn 8y ago
    This isn’t about a proposed deal not closing. This is about a proposed deal being reported as such, when in fact there had not ever been deal talks in the first place.
    - Puer 8y ago
      "Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." Also, if you're going to create throwaway accounts just to comment you might want to remember which one you're logged into.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Maybe they were in talks and it fell apart? That happens a lot and the company doesn't always confirm it publicly. Nothing you have said is surprising at all.
dnomad 8y ago
It is fake news. How else do you describe a story that is pure speculation backed by no evidence? There is zero credible evidence here to support WSJ's outlandish claims. And no, a single unnamed source, is not credible evidence. You would think after the Iraqi war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people based off such claims from "anonymous sources" the American people might realize this. Seriously, grow up.
- sctb 8y ago
  If you keep trying to spark flamewars here we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dnomad 8y ago
    I don't see anything in those guidelines that I've violated. Is there any hope that you might be more specific? All of my comments include supporting evidence whenever possible. They are not vague or dismissive. They are certainly not flamebait meant to spark flamewars.
    - pvg 8y ago
      "bullshit appeal to authority" "sordid affair" "the extreme detriment of the American people" "It is fake news" "Iraqi war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people" "Seriously, grow up." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29M_VElHoFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29M_VElHoFI This is all about some fairly basic reporting about a car manufacturer and its suppliers.
      - luckydata 8y ago
        They are doing it with everything lately though. I agree with the original post. It's classier, but completely aligned with MAGA. They put a nicer face on it which is scary. I prefer my Nazis to be recognizable for the monsters they really are.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
anilshanbhag 8y ago
Wall Street Journal is reputable and I subscribe to it. It is probably the best one for US business news. However it has a long history of publishing sensationalist articles especially about Tesla. I remember the articles about executives stepping away, NTSB probes, yellow lines, bankruptcy ... The recent article by Dan on how good Model 3 is is the only positive article I remember on WSJ about Tesla.
- praneshp 8y ago
  > I remember the articles about executives stepping away, NTSB probes, yellow lines, bankruptcy ... The recent article by Dan on how good Model 3 is is the only positive article I remember on WSJ about Tesla Do you remember any of them being factually incorrect?
- compcoffee 8y ago
  So which of those stories weren't true? You are implying bias, where I see a troubled company. Can you name another instance where the WSJ wrote negatively about a company and it turned out to be false? As a subscriber, why the sudden skepticism?
  - rory096 8y ago
    Andy Pasztor published unfounded speculation that the highly classified Zuma mission was a SpaceX failure.[0] It certainly was not and is believed to be a Northrop Grumman failure.[1] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500 https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumma...
  - ryanhuff 8y ago
    You don't have to be factually incorrect to be biased in your writing.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    There was a time when the WSJ wrote over and over articles with a negative slant about Apple, before Jobs came back. They would always describe them as "beleaguered" and similar terms. For some reason the "party line" changed, and it was quite striking to me. While it's undeniable that Apple was turned around, the sense of a manipulated narrative never left me. And while I don't trust Rupert Murdoch, this was before his involvement.
luckydata 8y ago
The WSJ is a clown car since it's become part of the Murdoch empire. I don't believe a word they write anymore.
carlmr 8y ago
Reputability should never be reason not to question something. There's a name for that and it's appeal to authority. Is Reuters reputable enough to question the sensationalism in WSJ? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/26/the-sensationalist-wsj-2/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/26/the-sensati...: "In any case, it’s clear from the photograph and the two main stories on the WSJ’s front page that the paper is aggressively becoming both sensationalist and political. That might be a sensible move, from the point of view of selling copies, especially on the newsstand. But it will also inevitably serve to erode the trust that many people, on Wall Street especially, have in the reporting of the WSJ."
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  Reuters yes. An Op/Ed in Reuters, no. You have to know you’re being disingenuous here.
r00fus 8y ago
WSJ is owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp. The new owners view WSJs reputation as an asset to be exploited as needed.
paidleaf 8y ago
> The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reputable sources for business journalism. Claiming that they would publish this article without proper vetting is ridiculous and equating it to "fake news" is shameful. So WSJ is beyond reproach and criticism? WSJ has had problems in the past with their reporting. Nobody is beyond reproach, especially a company owned by rupert murdoch. If you have an issue with the guy's comment, why not point that out instead of attacking him for being "shameful" for criticizing the wsj? https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329866441ec4089760f https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329866441ec4089760f "It's Not Just The Editorial Page: Study Finds WSJ's Reporting On Climate Change Also Skewed" https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-the-editorial-page-study-finds-wsj/204855 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-th... It's worrisome the social media campaign to quash criticism of the corporate media.
- Puer 8y ago
  Yes, the WSJ does make mistakes and, like all human creations, has some degree of underlying bias. However, it is generally a reliable and quality source of information. The parent comment was edited so of course there's no way you could have known, but it had previously equated the WSJ to being no better than "fake news." I think a fair interpretation of "fake news" is inflammatory information that's intentionally misleading and has no ties to any sort of reality. In this age of misinformation, I think it's important to support and recognize quality sources of information and education. Comparing the WSJ to a fake news publication is disrespectful and ignorant and I think it's worth calling out.
  - paidleaf 8y ago
    > The parent comment was edited so of course there's no way you could have known, but it had previously equated the WSJ to being no better than "fake news." I didn't realize he said WSJ is fake news. That is a bit hyperbolic but that's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. > In this age of misinformation, I think it's important to support and recognize quality sources of information and education In the age of misinformation, it is more critical that we hold a light to established news sources. Especially those that people blindly accept on faith. > Comparing the WSJ to a fake news publication is disrespectful and ignorant and I think it's worth calling out. So what if it was disrespectful? That's his opinion. Why attack him for it? Should he attack you for blindly accepting the WSJ? WSJ is just a company. Why are you so offended? There's plenty the WSJ did for people to disrespect it. Obviously there's plenty they did for you to respect it. Whatever happened to respecting each other opinions? You can disagree with him without calling him ignorant and attacking the guy.

by Puer 8y ago

seldon999 8y ago

A few months ago the WSJ reported that the aerospace supplier Woodward was in talks to be acquired by Boeing. [1] After the market closed, Woodward came out and categorically denied the WSJ's report, saying that it was not in talks. Period. Its not necessarily nefarious, but the WSJ does in fact publish stories that rely on questionable sources. It's absolutely not out of the question that that could have happened here as well. Note that since [1] was published, Woodward has not been acquired by Boeing, and its stock took a dive after the WSJ's poorly sourced story caused the stock to shoot up ~10% when it published. A lot of people that bought it on the WSJ's bad report lost a lot of money. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospace-parts-maker-woodward-1518104707 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospac...

Puer 8y ago
Just because the company denied the report it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't true. Companies deny things all the time in accordance to whatever suits their current interests. "Several hours after The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks, Woodward issued a news release saying that it “is not in discussions with Boeing over a possible acquisition of Woodward... After the statement, the people familiar with the matter said the companies remained in talks." The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. There's no doubt that the vetting process for industry sources is extensive. Remember when a right wing group tried to approach the Washington Post with a fake story and how quickly they were able to expose it? It's entirely possible for sources to give occasionally incorrect or unreliable information based on changing events, but the notion that the WSJ consistently relies on "questionable sources" is ignorant of how extensive the process is. Just because it isn't transparent (which is precisely to protect the quality of their sources) it doesn't mean it isn't reliable.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. This is a bullshit appeal to authority. Let's be very clear about the process: * The WSJ reports the claims of anonymous sources. It bases entire reports off these claims and makes no effort to provide verifiable evidence of what it is reporting. * When called on the sordid affair the WSJ and its defenders insist the paper is a serious journalist effort. This happens over and over at major American newspapers to the extreme detriment of the American people. And yet, here we are again in 2018. Here's an idea: instead of appealing to authority why not provide evidence? Why not make the sources go on record? Or provide verifiable evidence of the source's anonymous claims? Isn't this what journalism actually is?
  - pvg 8y ago
    The sources are not anonymous to the WSJ. They're not publishing random uncorroborated things.
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      The source may not be anonymous to the WSJ (we the readers have no insight as to whether or not the source was anonymous), but articles like this where WSJ was unable to find a second source shouldn't be published as journalism. Uncorroborated hearsay does not make for a proper, publishable news article.
      - pvg 8y ago
        That's why they don't publish 'uncorroborated hearsay'. You are just calling it that. We the readers have a pretty decent idea what standards major newspapers adhere to. It's a minor exercise in reading to get familiar with them if you personally happen not to be.
      - Puer 8y ago
        It's disingenuous to associate yourself as a "reader" when you evidently didn't read the article carefully: "Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." The second source the WSJ found was Tesla itself. Uninformed assertion does not make for a proper, useful Hacker News comment.
Animats 8y ago
About half of all big deals that are announced in the press don't close. They collapse for lots of reasons.
- Gigablah 8y ago
  Not sure what that has to do with this case. It wasn't announced, WSJ reported a rumor.
- seldonnn 8y ago
  This isn’t about a proposed deal not closing. This is about a proposed deal being reported as such, when in fact there had not ever been deal talks in the first place.
  - Puer 8y ago
    "Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." Also, if you're going to create throwaway accounts just to comment you might want to remember which one you're logged into.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Maybe they were in talks and it fell apart? That happens a lot and the company doesn't always confirm it publicly. Nothing you have said is surprising at all.

dnomad 8y ago

It is fake news. How else do you describe a story that is pure speculation backed by no evidence? There is zero credible evidence here to support WSJ's outlandish claims. And no, a single unnamed source, is not credible evidence. You would think after the Iraqi war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people based off such claims from "anonymous sources" the American people might realize this. Seriously, grow up.

sctb 8y ago
If you keep trying to spark flamewars here we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dnomad 8y ago
  I don't see anything in those guidelines that I've violated. Is there any hope that you might be more specific? All of my comments include supporting evidence whenever possible. They are not vague or dismissive. They are certainly not flamebait meant to spark flamewars.
  - pvg 8y ago
    "bullshit appeal to authority" "sordid affair" "the extreme detriment of the American people" "It is fake news" "Iraqi war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people" "Seriously, grow up." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29M_VElHoFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29M_VElHoFI This is all about some fairly basic reporting about a car manufacturer and its suppliers.
    - luckydata 8y ago
      They are doing it with everything lately though. I agree with the original post. It's classier, but completely aligned with MAGA. They put a nicer face on it which is scary. I prefer my Nazis to be recognizable for the monsters they really are.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

anilshanbhag 8y ago

Wall Street Journal is reputable and I subscribe to it. It is probably the best one for US business news. However it has a long history of publishing sensationalist articles especially about Tesla. I remember the articles about executives stepping away, NTSB probes, yellow lines, bankruptcy ... The recent article by Dan on how good Model 3 is is the only positive article I remember on WSJ about Tesla.

praneshp 8y ago
> I remember the articles about executives stepping away, NTSB probes, yellow lines, bankruptcy ... The recent article by Dan on how good Model 3 is is the only positive article I remember on WSJ about Tesla Do you remember any of them being factually incorrect?
compcoffee 8y ago
So which of those stories weren't true? You are implying bias, where I see a troubled company. Can you name another instance where the WSJ wrote negatively about a company and it turned out to be false? As a subscriber, why the sudden skepticism?
- rory096 8y ago
  Andy Pasztor published unfounded speculation that the highly classified Zuma mission was a SpaceX failure.[0] It certainly was not and is believed to be a Northrop Grumman failure.[1] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost-after-spacex-mission-fails-1515462479 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumman-errors-in-january-spy-satellite-failure-1523220500 https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumma...
- ryanhuff 8y ago
  You don't have to be factually incorrect to be biased in your writing.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  There was a time when the WSJ wrote over and over articles with a negative slant about Apple, before Jobs came back. They would always describe them as "beleaguered" and similar terms. For some reason the "party line" changed, and it was quite striking to me. While it's undeniable that Apple was turned around, the sense of a manipulated narrative never left me. And while I don't trust Rupert Murdoch, this was before his involvement.

luckydata 8y ago

The WSJ is a clown car since it's become part of the Murdoch empire. I don't believe a word they write anymore.

carlmr 8y ago

Reputability should never be reason not to question something. There's a name for that and it's appeal to authority. Is Reuters reputable enough to question the sensationalism in WSJ? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/26/the-sensationalist-wsj-2/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/26/the-sensati...: "In any case, it’s clear from the photograph and the two main stories on the WSJ’s front page that the paper is aggressively becoming both sensationalist and political. That might be a sensible move, from the point of view of selling copies, especially on the newsstand. But it will also inevitably serve to erode the trust that many people, on Wall Street especially, have in the reporting of the WSJ."

Sangermaine 8y ago
Reuters yes. An Op/Ed in Reuters, no. You have to know you’re being disingenuous here.

r00fus 8y ago

WSJ is owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp. The new owners view WSJs reputation as an asset to be exploited as needed.

paidleaf 8y ago

> The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reputable sources for business journalism. Claiming that they would publish this article without proper vetting is ridiculous and equating it to "fake news" is shameful. So WSJ is beyond reproach and criticism? WSJ has had problems in the past with their reporting. Nobody is beyond reproach, especially a company owned by rupert murdoch. If you have an issue with the guy's comment, why not point that out instead of attacking him for being "shameful" for criticizing the wsj? https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329866441ec4089760f https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329866441ec4089760f "It's Not Just The Editorial Page: Study Finds WSJ's Reporting On Climate Change Also Skewed" https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-the-editorial-page-study-finds-wsj/204855 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-th... It's worrisome the social media campaign to quash criticism of the corporate media.

Puer 8y ago
Yes, the WSJ does make mistakes and, like all human creations, has some degree of underlying bias. However, it is generally a reliable and quality source of information. The parent comment was edited so of course there's no way you could have known, but it had previously equated the WSJ to being no better than "fake news." I think a fair interpretation of "fake news" is inflammatory information that's intentionally misleading and has no ties to any sort of reality. In this age of misinformation, I think it's important to support and recognize quality sources of information and education. Comparing the WSJ to a fake news publication is disrespectful and ignorant and I think it's worth calling out.
- paidleaf 8y ago
  > The parent comment was edited so of course there's no way you could have known, but it had previously equated the WSJ to being no better than "fake news." I didn't realize he said WSJ is fake news. That is a bit hyperbolic but that's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. > In this age of misinformation, I think it's important to support and recognize quality sources of information and education In the age of misinformation, it is more critical that we hold a light to established news sources. Especially those that people blindly accept on faith. > Comparing the WSJ to a fake news publication is disrespectful and ignorant and I think it's worth calling out. So what if it was disrespectful? That's his opinion. Why attack him for it? Should he attack you for blindly accepting the WSJ? WSJ is just a company. Why are you so offended? There's plenty the WSJ did for people to disrespect it. Obviously there's plenty they did for you to respect it. Whatever happened to respecting each other opinions? You can disagree with him without calling him ignorant and attacking the guy.