13 ms·
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 respons
by 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...
- Dylan16807 5y ago"We ignored the public statements the company was making because they didn't send it to us directly" is a pretty bad look. Saying they didn't respond would be fine for almost any other topic, but it's bad reporting for this one.
- ajross 5y ago> The NYT will usually add an update to the online article if they receive a response after it's published Then why didn't they update this article? Again, it's not like Tesla didn't say anything relevant. You're making what amounts to a process argument: Tesla didn't respond in the right way and so the Times is allowed to claim that they refused to comment because it's technically true. But "technically true" isn't what journalism is supposed to be about, and the Times is usually pretty good about that in its hard news coverage. Which is why you can tell that this is really a business/investment story being pawned off as news.