4 ms·

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

• 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.