3 ms·

For a person so obsessed with journalists' accuracy, he is pretty quick to interpret/cherrypick/adjust the public editor's piece in the best possible way for hi

For a person so obsessed with journalists' accuracy, he is pretty quick to interpret/cherrypick/adjust the public editor's piece in the best possible way for him.

bcbrown 14y ago
No kidding. "Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment," “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that are unassailable.”" What was actually written: "In the matter of the Tesla Model S and its now infamous test drive, there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable."
- natrius 14y ago
  Mangling a quote like that is effectively lying. It's a pretty stupid move to make after succeeding in challenging the negative PR.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - taligent 14y ago
    >It's a pretty stupid move to make after succeeding in challenging the negative PR. You must be crazy if you think Tesla has "succeeded" over this.
    - natrius 14y ago
      Complaining about the article caused more people to read it, but I'd bet that most of the people who read the article have also heard about other news outlets replicating the test without issue. The most common understanding of the situation is probably that the New York Times article was an exaggeration.
cube13 14y ago
I'm confused. The NYT didn't retract anything. If they acknowledged that Tesla was, in fact, 100% correct, they would have done that. Go take a look at their corrections page. So how does the editor's piece actually support any of what he's saying?
supercanuck 14y ago
I don't think journalists' accuracy is what he is obsessed with. This was a single PR battle and while Elon is an admirable engineer, he is proving he is an equally good marketer.
- Kylekramer 14y ago
  I don't know if declaring a concession when there wasn't one is good marketing. I can almost guarantee this post is going to blow up in his face. Playing fast and loose with the truth in an argument based on the whether the other party told the truth? Press is going to love this response and tear him to pieces.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "Press is going to love this response and tear him to pieces." Agree. As the saying goes don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Journalists probably stick together and have each others back more than they don't. Not to mention that they could very well be jealous of Musk's fame and fortune as well. In many people's eyes as well where there's smoke there is fire. For example if this story appeared on 60 Minutes even as fair and balanced it would not be good for Musk and Tesla. (Not the same situation of course but to anyone curious dig up "60 Minutes Audi" to see what happened to that brand.)
- AceJohnny2 14y ago
  good marketer? To me he seems childish and combative. I understand he had beef with the original scathing review, but his own rebuttal should've been bulletproof. While it made some good points, it was also nitpicky and interpretive. I expect better from the public face of the silicon valley's vehicular prodigy.
- cube13 14y ago
  By straight out misquoting about what was said? That's not a good marketer.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
dmak 14y ago
It really made me question the integrity of the data logs. He could have cherry picked that too.

For a person so obsessed with journalists' accuracy, he is pretty quick to interpret/cherrypick/adjust the public editor's piece in the best possible way for him.

bcbrown 14y ago

No kidding. "Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment," “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that are unassailable.”" What was actually written: "In the matter of the Tesla Model S and its now infamous test drive, there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable."

natrius 14y ago
Mangling a quote like that is effectively lying. It's a pretty stupid move to make after succeeding in challenging the negative PR.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- taligent 14y ago
  >It's a pretty stupid move to make after succeeding in challenging the negative PR. You must be crazy if you think Tesla has "succeeded" over this.
  - natrius 14y ago
    Complaining about the article caused more people to read it, but I'd bet that most of the people who read the article have also heard about other news outlets replicating the test without issue. The most common understanding of the situation is probably that the New York Times article was an exaggeration.

cube13 14y ago

I'm confused. The NYT didn't retract anything. If they acknowledged that Tesla was, in fact, 100% correct, they would have done that. Go take a look at their corrections page. So how does the editor's piece actually support any of what he's saying?

supercanuck 14y ago

I don't think journalists' accuracy is what he is obsessed with. This was a single PR battle and while Elon is an admirable engineer, he is proving he is an equally good marketer.

Kylekramer 14y ago
I don't know if declaring a concession when there wasn't one is good marketing. I can almost guarantee this post is going to blow up in his face. Playing fast and loose with the truth in an argument based on the whether the other party told the truth? Press is going to love this response and tear him to pieces.
- larrys 14y ago
  "Press is going to love this response and tear him to pieces." Agree. As the saying goes don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Journalists probably stick together and have each others back more than they don't. Not to mention that they could very well be jealous of Musk's fame and fortune as well. In many people's eyes as well where there's smoke there is fire. For example if this story appeared on 60 Minutes even as fair and balanced it would not be good for Musk and Tesla. (Not the same situation of course but to anyone curious dig up "60 Minutes Audi" to see what happened to that brand.)
AceJohnny2 14y ago
good marketer? To me he seems childish and combative. I understand he had beef with the original scathing review, but his own rebuttal should've been bulletproof. While it made some good points, it was also nitpicky and interpretive. I expect better from the public face of the silicon valley's vehicular prodigy.
cube13 14y ago
By straight out misquoting about what was said? That's not a good marketer.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago

dmak 14y ago

It really made me question the integrity of the data logs. He could have cherry picked that too.