6 ms·
Regardless of how you feel about Tesla, or whether you believe these articles are PR pieces written by oil shills, this is just bad journalism. Good journalism
by natural219 13y ago
Regardless of how you feel about Tesla, or whether you believe these articles are PR pieces written by oil shills, this is just bad journalism.
Good journalism would give us any piece of the following information:
- The number of fires in Tesla vehicles compared to:
- other gas-powered cars in the same vehicle class
- other electric cars in the same vehicle class
- overall vehicle fire statistics in the country
- A possible explanation as to what mechanism in Tesla vehicles causes fires like
this.
- Some brief exploration of how concerns about Tesla's safety standards might affect
its broader offering, brand, and stock price.
Instead, we get:
Whether the latest news will have any lasting effect on public perceptions is doubtful. But it offered more fodder for bears who have been dumping Tesla shares since the company reported third-quarter earnings earlier this week. Tesla's stock has been on a tear most of the year but in the last month has lost more than 20 percent of its value.
Wait, sorry, was I trying to be impartial at the beginning of this comment? This is pure shill journalism. The big three are scared. Ignore them.
- larrys 13y ago"Good journalism" would have the requisite "to be sure" info such as you mentioned in "any piece" above. Problem with that is if there is enough of that you end up with a story that has no punch and it becomes "why is this newsworthy then". Not to mention doing that is also more work. So you've basically given people a reason why the story you are writing doesn't matter.
- 001sky 13y agoIf you do the math you suggest, it looks like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111 Musk argued that TSLA was 5x less likely than a petrol car to catch fire on the freeway. That math does not hold up. At the time, TSLA was approximately equally (1x) likely to catch fire under these circumstances. Given two more datapoints, that data is now TSLA is 3x more likely to catch fire, not 5x less likely than a standard car in a fwy accident. That actually seems like news.
- 001sky 13y agoWow, thought police flagged this off the front page? ________ 82. Tesla: Third Model S fire ...(cnet.com) 32 points by .... 1 hour ago | flag | 68 comments
- nonchalance 13y agoCriticisms of Tesla are quickly flagged off the front page
- deletes 13y agoThe real reason for flagging is not the supposed criticism, but the level of bias and falsehood in the article.
- 001sky 13y agoThe real reason for flagging is not the supposed criticism, but the level of bias and falsehood in the article. ^^^That has to be a joke. __________ "For consumers concerned about fire risk, there should be absolutely zero doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery than a large tank of highly flammable liquid," Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on a company blog in early October. The greates example of "the level of bias and falsehood in the article" seems to be this gem. The rest of the posted article is just a news report on the existence of a fire with a link to a picture.[1] [1] compare: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-28/tesla-says-model-s-driver-unhurt-in-mexico-crash.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-28/tesla-says-model-s-... The CNET guy is not guilty of selectively reading safety reports and pushing misleading stats to the public. That language was a quote from Tesla...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deletes 13y ago^^^That has to be a joke. Ditto. I was not talking about this particulate article( i should have added suffix s to article ), but just my opinion why some articles are quickly flagged of the site. While I may be wrong on this one, it is still my honest opinion, and I would prefer less aggressive approach in my replyers.