4 ms·

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 an

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.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        It's not uncorroborated. Tesla confirmed the main claim, which was that they were seeking price reductions for past contracts.
        tssva 8y ago
        Tesla confirmed something but from that statement it is impossible to determine they confirmed that they are looking cash back from past contracts. It can be read that Tesla confirmed they are looking for price reduction of current contracts some of which may have been established in 2016 but the terms of which have not completed. If suppliers have failed to fully deliver as required under the contracts such as meeting quality or timeline terms it would not be unusual for Tesla to go back to the suppliers to ask for a refund.
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.

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.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      It's not uncorroborated. Tesla confirmed the main claim, which was that they were seeking price reductions for past contracts.
      - tssva 8y ago
        Tesla confirmed something but from that statement it is impossible to determine they confirmed that they are looking cash back from past contracts. It can be read that Tesla confirmed they are looking for price reduction of current contracts some of which may have been established in 2016 but the terms of which have not completed. If suppliers have failed to fully deliver as required under the contracts such as meeting quality or timeline terms it would not be unusual for Tesla to go back to the suppliers to ask for a refund.

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.