6 ms·

Looking forward to the retractions from all those publications that strongly implied or outright claimed AP was involved.

itsoktocry 5y ago
It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything?
- prophesi 5y ago
  The actual reason they don't need to retract anything is that the sensational articles already paid off, and they're now off to write another unsubstantiated claim of a headline on something else.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Because lying tends to reduce trust.
- SllX 5y ago
  Would be good form after a reactionary piece prior to the results of the NTSB investigation to see the publications that published such pieces take some responsibility for what they publish. Better form would have been not publishing reactionary articles in the first place.
- adolph 5y ago
  So you are saying in the absence of evidence they claimed that there was no driver and they have no reason to correct that misinformation?
  - Jordrok 5y ago
    You do realize that it was the police who originally stated that there was no driver?
    - adolph 5y ago
      Why would a serious publication take statements of the police at face value much less as evidence of anything? > It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything? A publication which does not retract or correct misinformation is a key part of the problem.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  Oh, I don't know that AP was invented as a car feature for so long, I mean dozing and drunken drivers must "strongly implied" because no one was driving...
myfavoritedog 5y ago
These days, the cycle with the fake news is long gone by the time anyone knows any facts. The facts arrive too late. The clicks have been clicked. The damage has been done. The media moves on to its next money-making event. No real repercussions are to be found.
- sennight 5y ago
  > The damage has been done... No real repercussions are to be found. Their reputation is totally destroyed and they're so emotionally shattered that "learn to code" is a bannable offense on twitter... repercussions. Still waiting on those Russian piss-tapes.
- threeseed 5y ago
  > No real repercussions are to be found This is simply not true. Almost every day media around the world are subject to libel lawsuits. Recently, Newsmax and Fox News were sued by Dominion Voting Systems and their employees and Meghan Markle sued Daily Mail for publishing personal letters. And most of the respectable news organisations still abide by the core tenets of journalism e.g. multiple, vetted sources.
  - meragrin 5y ago
    > And most of the respectable news organisations still abide by the core tenets of journalism e.g. multiple, vetted sources. And which ones are those?
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      The ones that don't claim that no reasonable person would take them seriously when someone sues them for defamation (Fox has done this multiple times).
      - myfavoritedog 5y ago
        Every opinion host out there uses this defense when the inevitable suit is levied. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defense-to-oan-defamation-lawsuit-is-that-on-air-statements-shouldnt-be-considered-fact-869161/ https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defen...
jonas21 5y ago
Can you provide an example of a publication that "strongly implied or outright claimed" on their own that autopilot was involved? At least in the mainstream press, they seem to have reported what the police were saying at the time, and indicated that they were quoting the police. For example, from the NYT [1]: > Two men were killed in Texas after a Tesla they were in crashed on Saturday and caught fire with neither of the men behind the wheel, the authorities said. > Mark Herman, the Harris County Precinct 4 constable, said that physical evidence from the scene and interviews with witnesses led officials “to believe no one was driving the vehicle at the time of the crash.” They also attempted to get Tesla's side of the story, but Tesla didn't respond: > Tesla, which has disbanded its public relations team, did not respond to a request for comment. I'd be upset with the police for making such confident statements that were contradicted by later investigations. But the media, who may not have had access to the accident scene, seems to have done a reasonable job reporting, at least from what I've seen. In an ideal world, maybe they'd do an independent investigation instead of relying on police statements, but it's a question of how to allocate resources across all things they could be reporting. It probably makes it more difficult to do this when Tesla won't talk to them. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/business/tesla-fatal-crash-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/business/tesla-fatal-cras...
- ajross 5y ago
  > They also attempted to get Tesla's side of the story, but Tesla didn't respond: To be fair, that's a little disingenuous given that Musk was literally tweeting denials at press time. Tesla certainly didn't refuse to respond, they had lots of things to say. But the article didn't get them in time so went to press trying to imply they had something to hide. As far as the media reporting the story: it's fine. It was newsworthy. The "there was no one driving the car" business from the fire chief seems in hindsight to have been the real failing. That quote seems to have been a lot jucier than was warranted. In fact it seems almost certain that someone was manually operating that car via some mechanism or another.
  - jonas21 5y ago
    I don't think this was a case of them simply not getting a response in time. The NYT will usually add an update to the online article if they receive a response after it's published. And according to Electrek, Tesla refuses to comment on all press inquiries [1]. > Since dissolving the team at the beginning of the year, I had hoped that Tesla would try to build a new one, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. > Instead, Tesla is leaving all press inquiries unanswered and doesn’t seem to comment on any story. But I agree with you that the local authorities really screwed up here when communicating with the press. [1] https://electrek.co/2020/10/06/tesla-dissolves-pr-department/ https://electrek.co/2020/10/06/tesla-dissolves-pr-department...
grecy 5y ago
It would also be great if we got retractions of all the "burned uncontrollably for hours" reports where the firemen "couldn't put it out, and Tesla didn't respond to calls to help". Turns out, that was all nonsense too: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36189237/tesla-model-s-fire-texas-crash-details-fire-chief/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36189237/tesla-model-s-fi...
- josefx 5y ago
  Seems like its actually worse then what I read. Basically says they would be screwed if they had to deal with a battery fire on a highway.

itsoktocry 5y ago

It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything?

prophesi 5y ago
The actual reason they don't need to retract anything is that the sensational articles already paid off, and they're now off to write another unsubstantiated claim of a headline on something else.
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Because lying tends to reduce trust.
SllX 5y ago
Would be good form after a reactionary piece prior to the results of the NTSB investigation to see the publications that published such pieces take some responsibility for what they publish. Better form would have been not publishing reactionary articles in the first place.
adolph 5y ago
So you are saying in the absence of evidence they claimed that there was no driver and they have no reason to correct that misinformation?
- Jordrok 5y ago
  You do realize that it was the police who originally stated that there was no driver?
  - adolph 5y ago
    Why would a serious publication take statements of the police at face value much less as evidence of anything? > It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything? A publication which does not retract or correct misinformation is a key part of the problem.
justicezyx 5y ago
Oh, I don't know that AP was invented as a car feature for so long, I mean dozing and drunken drivers must "strongly implied" because no one was driving...

myfavoritedog 5y ago

These days, the cycle with the fake news is long gone by the time anyone knows any facts. The facts arrive too late. The clicks have been clicked. The damage has been done. The media moves on to its next money-making event. No real repercussions are to be found.

sennight 5y ago
> The damage has been done... No real repercussions are to be found. Their reputation is totally destroyed and they're so emotionally shattered that "learn to code" is a bannable offense on twitter... repercussions. Still waiting on those Russian piss-tapes.
threeseed 5y ago
> No real repercussions are to be found This is simply not true. Almost every day media around the world are subject to libel lawsuits. Recently, Newsmax and Fox News were sued by Dominion Voting Systems and their employees and Meghan Markle sued Daily Mail for publishing personal letters. And most of the respectable news organisations still abide by the core tenets of journalism e.g. multiple, vetted sources.
- meragrin 5y ago
  > And most of the respectable news organisations still abide by the core tenets of journalism e.g. multiple, vetted sources. And which ones are those?
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    The ones that don't claim that no reasonable person would take them seriously when someone sues them for defamation (Fox has done this multiple times).
    - myfavoritedog 5y ago
      Every opinion host out there uses this defense when the inevitable suit is levied. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defense-to-oan-defamation-lawsuit-is-that-on-air-statements-shouldnt-be-considered-fact-869161/ https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defen...

jonas21 5y ago

Can you provide an example of a publication that "strongly implied or outright claimed" on their own that autopilot was involved? At least in the mainstream press, they seem to have reported what the police were saying at the time, and indicated that they were quoting the police. For example, from the NYT [1]: > Two men were killed in Texas after a Tesla they were in crashed on Saturday and caught fire with neither of the men behind the wheel, the authorities said. > Mark Herman, the Harris County Precinct 4 constable, said that physical evidence from the scene and interviews with witnesses led officials “to believe no one was driving the vehicle at the time of the crash.” They also attempted to get Tesla's side of the story, but Tesla didn't respond: > Tesla, which has disbanded its public relations team, did not respond to a request for comment. I'd be upset with the police for making such confident statements that were contradicted by later investigations. But the media, who may not have had access to the accident scene, seems to have done a reasonable job reporting, at least from what I've seen. In an ideal world, maybe they'd do an independent investigation instead of relying on police statements, but it's a question of how to allocate resources across all things they could be reporting. It probably makes it more difficult to do this when Tesla won't talk to them. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/business/tesla-fatal-crash-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/business/tesla-fatal-cras...

ajross 5y ago
> They also attempted to get Tesla's side of the story, but Tesla didn't respond: To be fair, that's a little disingenuous given that Musk was literally tweeting denials at press time. Tesla certainly didn't refuse to respond, they had lots of things to say. But the article didn't get them in time so went to press trying to imply they had something to hide. As far as the media reporting the story: it's fine. It was newsworthy. The "there was no one driving the car" business from the fire chief seems in hindsight to have been the real failing. That quote seems to have been a lot jucier than was warranted. In fact it seems almost certain that someone was manually operating that car via some mechanism or another.
- jonas21 5y ago
  I don't think this was a case of them simply not getting a response in time. The NYT will usually add an update to the online article if they receive a response after it's published. And according to Electrek, Tesla refuses to comment on all press inquiries [1]. > Since dissolving the team at the beginning of the year, I had hoped that Tesla would try to build a new one, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. > Instead, Tesla is leaving all press inquiries unanswered and doesn’t seem to comment on any story. But I agree with you that the local authorities really screwed up here when communicating with the press. [1] https://electrek.co/2020/10/06/tesla-dissolves-pr-department/ https://electrek.co/2020/10/06/tesla-dissolves-pr-department...

grecy 5y ago

It would also be great if we got retractions of all the "burned uncontrollably for hours" reports where the firemen "couldn't put it out, and Tesla didn't respond to calls to help". Turns out, that was all nonsense too: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36189237/tesla-model-s-fire-texas-crash-details-fire-chief/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36189237/tesla-model-s-fi...

josefx 5y ago
Seems like its actually worse then what I read. Basically says they would be screwed if they had to deal with a battery fire on a highway.