4 ms·

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

by 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.
- neotek 8y ago
  >Why not make the sources go on record? Do you really need someone to explain to you why this is a silly idea?
- empath75 8y ago
  I’ve worked at multiple companies that have been acquired. They’ll deny that talks are occurring up until the day the deal happens.
- imh 8y ago
  [citation needed] is one of the best things that happened to wikipedia and it could stand to show up in more places. I'm amazed internet journalism doesn't use citations. It's not like there's a lack of space like print papers.
- stale2002 8y ago
  But... Tesla confirmed the story. They literally said that they WERE seeking price reductions for past contracts. Is this really the hill to die on? A story that was confirmed by the direct source that this was regarding.
- cepth 8y ago
  Keep in mind that John Carreyou’s sources for the Theranos articles faced actual 24/7 surveillance, and received legally threatening letters from one of the country’s top law firms (Boies Schiller). This is not to say that Musk would definitely do such a thing. However, the employee(s) who talked to the WSJ are risking personal legal liability for talking to a journalist. Any journalist worth their salt is going to allow sources to go on “deep background” when appropriate. I write all this as a soon to be Tesla customer. Yes, asking for manufacturer rebates is not completely unheard of, but it’s also the case that this very rarely happens. If you’re thinking there’s a conspiracy, keep in mind the WSJ’s auto reviewer just published an overwhelmingly positive review of the Model 3 this week, which Musk retweeted. US libel and defamation law puts newspapers in legal jeopardy if they intentionally publish false information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan). News Corp has a couple billion reasons to let the WSJ’s newsroom do a thorough and honest job.

by Puer 8y ago

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.
neotek 8y ago
>Why not make the sources go on record? Do you really need someone to explain to you why this is a silly idea?
empath75 8y ago
I’ve worked at multiple companies that have been acquired. They’ll deny that talks are occurring up until the day the deal happens.
imh 8y ago
[citation needed] is one of the best things that happened to wikipedia and it could stand to show up in more places. I'm amazed internet journalism doesn't use citations. It's not like there's a lack of space like print papers.
stale2002 8y ago
But... Tesla confirmed the story. They literally said that they WERE seeking price reductions for past contracts. Is this really the hill to die on? A story that was confirmed by the direct source that this was regarding.
cepth 8y ago
Keep in mind that John Carreyou’s sources for the Theranos articles faced actual 24/7 surveillance, and received legally threatening letters from one of the country’s top law firms (Boies Schiller). This is not to say that Musk would definitely do such a thing. However, the employee(s) who talked to the WSJ are risking personal legal liability for talking to a journalist. Any journalist worth their salt is going to allow sources to go on “deep background” when appropriate. I write all this as a soon to be Tesla customer. Yes, asking for manufacturer rebates is not completely unheard of, but it’s also the case that this very rarely happens. If you’re thinking there’s a conspiracy, keep in mind the WSJ’s auto reviewer just published an overwhelmingly positive review of the Model 3 this week, which Musk retweeted. US libel and defamation law puts newspapers in legal jeopardy if they intentionally publish false information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan). News Corp has a couple billion reasons to let the WSJ’s newsroom do a thorough and honest job.