11 ms·

Musk is filtering the NYT's response when he says: "the Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment," “took casual and impr

• wuest 14y ago
  > I'm not sure what Musk is trying to accomplish at this point, his "spin" is transparent and it feels condescending. Musk has apparently decided after Top Gear that negative press is going to be an issue which he will fight to the death. It certainly feels like he's digging his way out of this particular PR hole.
  • venus 14y ago
    > he's digging his way out of this particular PR hole Out of? Or into? I have to admit I like Musk a lot more when he keeps his mouth shut. With this and his ludicrous Boeing grandstanding, he is sounding less like a mature, visionary CEO with every word he says.
    • wuest 14y ago
      > Out of? Or into? I'd argue into. He appears to think he's digging his way out.
    • snogglethorpe 14y ago
      Yeah, Musk has done some great things, but he seems the sort of person best admired from a distance with some vaseline on the lens... looking too closely reveals something rather less admirable. [e.g. his "I'm the alpha in this relationship" quote,† at his wedding... I mean, that's downright creepy...] † http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/millionaire-starter-wife http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/mill... [note: I originally cited http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-interview-1212-4 http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-int... as a source for the quote, and some replies refer to it, not the Marie Claire op-ed (which is a more direct source).]
      • ANH 14y ago
        My god, that journalist should write for soap operas. Based on my firsthand experience with journalists, I would not be at all surprised to learn that what you quoted was something reported second hand, was said ironically, taken out of context, etc. Suggesting equivalence between the nature of his romantic relationships and the nature of the SpaceX relationship with NASA? Methinks the pendulum has swung a bit far.
        • doktrin 14y ago
          > Based on my firsthand experience with journalists, I would not be at all surprised to learn that what you quoted was something reported second hand, was said ironically, taken out of context, etc. Journalists shouldn't get a free pass simply by virtue of their profession, but neither should they be vilified for it. I am not particularly familiar with this issue, but a google search turned up the following op-ed, written by Musk's ex-wife [1] : Still, there were warning signs. As we danced at our wedding reception, Elon told me, "I am the alpha in this relationship." I shrugged it off, just as I would later shrug off signing the postnuptial agreement, but as time went on, I learned that he was serious. He had grown up in the male-dominated culture of South Africa, and the will to compete and dominate that made him so successful in business did not magically shut off when he came home. This, and the vast economic imbalance between us, meant that in the months following our wedding, a certain dynamic began to take hold. Elon's judgment overruled mine, and he was constantly remarking on the ways he found me lacking. "I am your wife," I told him repeatedly, "not your employee." "If you were my employee," he said just as often, "I would fire you." [1] http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/millionaire-starter-wife http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/mill...
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
• Volpe 14y ago
  I don't think it misrepresents it too much. It's a pretty 'squirmy' retraction. Basically they are saying what Broder wrote was incorrect, and showed poor judgement, but without faulting Broder in any way. (As ridiculous as that sounds)
  • donohoe 14y ago
    Lets be very clear - it is not a retraction. Public Editor is not part if the newsroom. It is a role outside if it and she does not have any authority other than to post to her blog. If there is a retraction it will be clearly posted on the original article.
  • makomk 14y ago
    Imagine, for a moment, that Broder had a more detailed record of his drive and had used it to make the article 100% truthful and accurate. Would it have been any more flattering to Tesla or to the Model S?
    • stcredzero 14y ago
      No, but it would have made him look like an idiot and made the article confusing and useless. If he had been doing his job properly, there would have been a do-over.
    • waterlesscloud 14y ago
      I don't know, but it would have removed my objections to Broder's work. I do want journalists to produce 100% truthful and accurate work. Especially in a case where it is so very easy to actually be factual.
      • eli 14y ago
        Fair enough, but there's a huge gap between "ideologically-motivated, intentionally dishonest smear campaign" and "essentially accurate review that was a little sloppy on some details"
    • MartinCron 14y ago
• socalnate1 14y ago
  Agreed. This blog post is at least as disingenuous as the original article that Musk called "faked."
• Afforess 14y ago
  Disagree. Go read the NYT editorial response, it's so full of spin it could serve as an amusement park ride. It only served to muddy the waters, give some kind of half-not-apology, in the hopes the issue would drop. I'm surprised so many people are hating on Mr. Musk.
  • JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    If Kim Jong-un said he was the Queen of Pluto and the Financial Times responded with "the Kim family are genetically engineered Nazis", I would still lose respect for the Financial Times. Musk's portrayal of the New York Times's response is dishonest; that burden is not lightened by the Times's original article having been similarly inventive.
  • softbuilder 14y ago
    Being disappointed isn't the same thing as hating.
  • brown9-2 14y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you thought was "spin" or how the public editor was unfair?
    • Afforess 14y ago
      Sure. --------------- First the NYT says Broder was honest: Mr. Broder and The Times have maintained that the article was done in good faith, and that it is an honest account of what happened. Then the NYT says Broder was misleading (dishonest): Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey --------------- Next, the NYT says Broder should have taken more detailed logs: A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs... But next the NYT says more detailed logs are pointless: I could recite chapter and verse of the test drive...I don’t think that’s useful here. --------------- And the NYT says Border did the test drive in good faith: I am convinced that he [Broder] took on the test drive in good faith But then the NYT criticizes his good faith: ...there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable --------------- That's just a quick snapshot of the whiplash-inducing spin in the NYT editorial.
• Danihan 14y ago
  >I'm not sure what Musk is trying to accomplish at this point, his "spin" is transparent and it feels condescending. He's attempting to change the public perception surrounding a very questionable hit piece on his company. While it feels somewhat polarizing to me, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
  • flyinRyan 14y ago
    IMO, he's making it look worse. I didn't even know about this article and I've still mostly avoided reading about this stuff but my take away so far is that Elon's car is hard for normal people to use, and he's so aggressive at attacking anyone who would say anything bad about it that they're probably right. Of course you can say "but, you're not even fully informed about the issues" and it's true, but neither will most consumers.
• ww520 14y ago
  Well the NYT's response is basically admitting fault begrudgingly. Their usual response is, "we stand 100% behind the published piece." Getting them to give this response is amazing. Musk can certainly claim victory.
  • eli 14y ago
    The Public Editor has no obligation to stand behind anything the NYT's publishes. Just the opposite -- they are supposed to stand up to the paper where appropriate. I don't think it's fair to say that they usually stand 100% behind sloppy reporting (but feel free to point me to other instances).
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• metalsahu 14y ago
  I see nothing wrong in Musk defending his position vigorously because he had complete faith in the car but more so because the logs clearly indicate Broder forgot to top-off. The NYT review is damaging not only to Tesla's sales but also questions the viability of electric cars. I am ok with how Musk handled the situation and I don't think Tesla is going to lose any more goodwill in the long run any more than Apple lost during Steve Jobs' response during 'Antennagate'...the difference is that there is no damning evidence against the Tesla. More importantly I feel that this incident has heralded a new era in media communications where the press can no longer wield this one-sided power over companies, now the companies are in a position to retort back.
  • JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    I see something wrong in him mis-representing his opponent. Saying the New York Times "no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened" is a rose-tinted reading of the Times's response [1]. Granted, I may be projecting my Swiss sensibilities about what constitutes honest discourse. [1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-with-precision-and-judgment-but-not-integrity-in-tesla-test/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-wi...
    • vetrom 14y ago
      Unfortunately for us Americans, the Swiss have had at least a couple of hundreds of years longer to evolve discourse in the public eye, depending on how you read your history. While there have been exceptions, I would imagine that the first real wide-ranging impact of such discourse in public in the States here began in the previous decade.
• guiambros 14y ago
  C'mon, the entire response is a joke. The NY Times is just trying to save their face, after precipitously baking Broder without knowing the facts (and knowing that Tesla had that amount of data of the test drive). Ms. Sullivan herself admits that "Did he [Broder] use good judgment along the way? Not especially." And also that "...Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored." Still, she insists that it was all done in good faith and integrity. I'm sorry, but this is The New York Times. You can't just say "oh, our journalist just messed up by NOT following common sense instructions, and NOT taking proper notes, and still writing a misleading article [about the wrong topic -- the car -- rather than the super charge stations which was the original intention]. But hey, it was all in good faith, so no harm". To me this is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect to hear from the editor of the NYT. She missed the opportunity to recognize the flaws of the original article, apologize on behalf of their journalist for not taking proper diligence and care that you'd expect from such publication, and offer readers (& Tesla) to re-do the entire test and publish the results again.
  • cynicalkane 14y ago
    The record clearly establishes that Broder engaged in unrealistic driving patterns to get the car to run out of juice--stuff like driving around in circles and ignoring range warnings--and then went on to lie and mislead people about it. There's a good point to be made here about arguing: like baseball, choose the juciest, easiest pitches and then swing for the fences. Don't try to argue every point and stretch the truth to do so, because it damages credibility. Musk tried to argue more than he should have. So we have a whole lot of people attacking Musk when the NYT did a provably dishonest smear job and is trying not to admit it.
    • eli 14y ago
      This has turned into a political argument. We might as well be arguing vim vs emacs. But I don't see any evidence that the review was intentionally dishonest or intended to be any sort of smear. Driving around for ~5 minutes in a giant parking lot doesn't seem especially unrealistic to me (if it was intended to run down the battery, it was a pretty weak attempt). The advice he says he received may sound made up to you, but that's certainly not proven (And shouldn't it be? Tesla doesn't tape its customer service calls?).
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• neuralnetwork 14y ago
  I am surprised that so many people are "disappointed" in Elon Musk. So he overemphasized some parts and underemphasized other parts of NYT's response (which admitted that there were some inaccuracies in the contested article). But so what? Elon Musk and Tesla have done an amazing job with the Model S, and its quality does not change because of the misrepresentation. If this is enough to get disappointed in Elon Musk, then you should awfully disappointed with a whole lot of people.
  • robinh 14y ago
    No, because that's not how disappointment works. You must understand that Elon Musk is considered one of the most ultimately successful technological innovators on earth by many here: he began with a startup, then proceeded to build a commercial space company, work on solar energy and electric cars. It is unsurprising that this causes many of us technically inclined people to unconsciously worship Musk - if only a little bit. Then, when it turns out that the person you've just neatly placed upon a pedestal does something you very much disagree with, too, is when people actually become disappointed.
    • neuralnetwork 14y ago
      To me, it sounds like saying that Elon Musk was God and we worshiped him, and now he made a mistake. So he is not perfect anymore, and people are upset. And won't be buying Teslas anymore.
      • robinh 14y ago
        Yes. You can make a caricature out of it, but that's how human beings work.
        • emn13 14y ago
          Not to mention the fact that this figure seem childishly incapable of admitting fault. Urgh. I hate it when people can't accept responsibility. It's fine to make a mistake, especially since this didn't do much real lasting harm. So admit, learn from it, don't do it again. Don't twist the facts and (delusionally and irrelevantly) declare victory.
• loup-vaillant 14y ago
  That's hardly a spin. Musk: "Victory! The NYT admits Broder got his facts wrong!" Devil's advocate "Defeat! The NYT still stays Broder was honest!" No contradiction here, just plausible deniability. Broder made honest mistakes that lead him to get his facts wrong (well). Tesla motors is happy to come out clean, and its cherry picking is just making clear they won't press the issue.
  • pmr_ 14y ago
    I have a problem with honesty as the redeeming quality problem of the article. Honesty is certainly one of the most important traits of a journalist, so is understanding bias and preventing bias as much as possible. Broder was honest in representing his trip but apparently (sloppy notes, see NYT article) didn't do due diligence when it comes to questioning his own perception and recounting of the events.