4 ms·

Absolutely brutal way for Broder's career to end.

by onedev 14y ago

busterarm 14y ago
I'm skeptical that it will. Broder pretty much is their go-to guy for coverage of energy/big oil. His articles fit their editorial vision. If the NYT cares about their credibility, they'll get rid of him, but this isn't an isolated incident for them. I stopped reading them a decade ago for that reason.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  No, this is a Jayson Blair-level screwup. All opportunities the NYT might have had to spin the logs in their favor ended when Broder deliberately drove around a parking lot trying to exhaust the battery. He's done. As in, "Yes, Mr. Broder, I would like fries with that."
  - marcamillion 14y ago
    Yeh...I agree. Right now, Broder's job (and perhaps career) and NYT's credibility are mutually exclusive.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    I don’t get that. There is an obvious explanation for driving around the parking lot in circles: He was curious what the reserves are and how the car would react. Simple as that. He didn’t write about it in his review anyway and it’s completely irrelevant for his review.
    - evan_ 14y ago
      as long as we're imagining scenarios, let's imagine he DID get the car to go completely dead in the parking lot. How do you think he would have reported it? Would he have said "I decided to drive around in circles for a little while, and eventually, after a while it died, and I pushed it to the charger"? Or would he have said "I was barely able to coast off the highway into the parking lot, and I had to push two-and-a-half-tons of dead batteries the last quarter-mile to the charger head"?
      - arrrg 14y ago
        By saying “He did this for nefarious reasons!” you are equally imagining scenarios. We do not have to consider those hypotheticals if we do not even have an explanation for this we can agree on. That’s the first step. What could explain the data? 1. He wanted to see how much reserve the car has and how it handles running out of juice (with no intention of lying about what he did to get the car empty). 2. He wanted to see how much reserve the car has and how it handles running out of juice (with intention to lie about what he did to get the car empty). 3. The pattern in the data exists for unrelated reasons (e.g. driving around searching, etc.). Since he didn’t actually lie about this (he merely didn’t say anything) you are speculating about his character. That seems a bit too uncertain for me. Plus, after considering this question a bit more, I think we are wrong in focusing so much on options 1. and 2.: The third one seems very plausible to me, actually.

Absolutely brutal way for Broder's career to end.

by onedev 14y ago

Absolutely brutal way for Broder's career to end.

I'm skeptical that it will. Broder pretty much is their go-to guy for coverage of energy/big oil. His articles fit their editorial vision. If the NYT cares about their credibility, they'll get rid of him, but this isn't an isolated incident for them. I stopped reading them a decade ago for that reason.

CamperBob2 14y ago
No, this is a Jayson Blair-level screwup. All opportunities the NYT might have had to spin the logs in their favor ended when Broder deliberately drove around a parking lot trying to exhaust the battery. He's done. As in, "Yes, Mr. Broder, I would like fries with that."
- marcamillion 14y ago
  Yeh...I agree. Right now, Broder's job (and perhaps career) and NYT's credibility are mutually exclusive.
- arrrg 14y ago
  I don’t get that. There is an obvious explanation for driving around the parking lot in circles: He was curious what the reserves are and how the car would react. Simple as that. He didn’t write about it in his review anyway and it’s completely irrelevant for his review.
  - evan_ 14y ago
    as long as we're imagining scenarios, let's imagine he DID get the car to go completely dead in the parking lot. How do you think he would have reported it? Would he have said "I decided to drive around in circles for a little while, and eventually, after a while it died, and I pushed it to the charger"? Or would he have said "I was barely able to coast off the highway into the parking lot, and I had to push two-and-a-half-tons of dead batteries the last quarter-mile to the charger head"?
    - arrrg 14y ago
      By saying “He did this for nefarious reasons!” you are equally imagining scenarios. We do not have to consider those hypotheticals if we do not even have an explanation for this we can agree on. That’s the first step. What could explain the data? 1. He wanted to see how much reserve the car has and how it handles running out of juice (with no intention of lying about what he did to get the car empty). 2. He wanted to see how much reserve the car has and how it handles running out of juice (with intention to lie about what he did to get the car empty). 3. The pattern in the data exists for unrelated reasons (e.g. driving around searching, etc.). Since he didn’t actually lie about this (he merely didn’t say anything) you are speculating about his character. That seems a bit too uncertain for me. Plus, after considering this question a bit more, I think we are wrong in focusing so much on options 1. and 2.: The third one seems very plausible to me, actually.