I wonder if Elon Musk has ever worked in a service job before, like being a waiter in a restaurant. Try to imagine this exchange:
Customer: "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup."
Waiter: "But that's impossible, I've seen the recipe and fly is not an ingredient."
The biggest thing I've learned from serving customers is to approach complaints and challenges with the humility that hey, they just may be right. It is a mark of inexperience and immaturity to go on the offensive from the perspective of "stupid, bad customer, misunderstanding my product/service again."
(And I know that the reporter is not necessarily a customer, but as a reviewer, he represents their potential buying interests and should be treated as such.)
"from the perspective of "stupid, bad customer, misunderstanding my product/service again.""
Exactly. And further to that point it's the golden rule. He who has the gold rules. The NYT has the audience and the ear of the public. That's the gold.
"mark of inexperience and immaturity"
The test for this of course if anyone after this experience would follow the same path as Musk did (Musk or someone simply knowing about this). If the answer is "no" then a lesson was learned which dovetails with "inexperience".
not to put too fine a point on it, but tesla has a lot of "gold" in the form of an inflated stock price which is driven by hope and expectations.
Tesla has lost money every year for the past four years, and lost $400 million in the most recent calendar year. NYT made $160mm in after tax profit last year.
NYT market cap is $1.3bn.
Tesla market cap is $3.9bn.
attention is gold, and gold is gold. perhaps tesla is trying to make sure they have an explanation for when they miss sales expectations - blame any sales shortfall on the NYT.
Didn't the data pulled from the car indicate that the reviewer was almost certainly trying to fabricate a bad review?
If I were the editor in chief of this publication, I'd definitely be investigating this to find out what happened.
If what's been alleged turns out to be true, the reviewer is a POS and should be fired, blacklisted from the business of reviewing automobiles or any other products for that matter, and publicly called out for being a liar.
A journalist's sole contribution to society is his word. If that word becomes worthless, he needs to shift into a different line of work.
> "Didn't the data pulled from the car indicate that the reviewer was almost certainly trying to fabricate a bad review?"
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data pulled from the car indicated to Musk that the reviewer was sabotaging the review. The counterpoint was that all of the supposed instances of "fabrication" were either user error, Tesla's customer support error, or normal use.
For example, Musk claims that the author was deliberately driving in circle in a parking lot to run down the battery. The author claims he circled the parking lot a couple of times to find the unlit charging station in the dark (a claim since corroborated by third parties visiting the location).
> "If I were the editor in chief of this publication, I'd definitely be investigating this to find out what happened."
The NYT investigated this incident, and they found that the original author was imprecise in his notes, but that the claims against the vehicle were fair and accurate.
> "If what's been alleged turns out to be true, the reviewer is a POS and should be fired, blacklisted from the business of reviewing automobiles or any other products for that matter, and publicly called out for being a liar."
Unfortunately, most of the internet (HN included) were calling for all of the above without investigating the allegations.
For example, Musk claims that the author was deliberately driving in circle in a parking lot to run down the battery.
I think more damage was done in this assertion than anything else in the whole drama with the exception of the flatbed. Here is Musk making a big point of travelling half a mile and raising the profile of a minor issue - making people think that half a mile is of considerable importance for the vehicle. 'It's not fair, he (slowly) drove half a mile to kill the battery' translates neatly into 'driving half a mile will kill the battery'
Under ordinary circumstances a half mile would be nothing. But when the car is telling you that you have zero miles of charge remaining, the half mile could be the difference between getting an uneventful charge and getting a dramatic story about the car dying within walking distance of the charging station.
However reasonable the idea, it still is one of the prominent themes in the whole debacle: "half a mile is an issue to an EV" - particularly given the massively changing ranges throughout the story. It adds the the air of mystery and unreliability.
Personally I'm surprised that more wasn't made of the incredibly long time it takes to 'fuel' the car. Long trips are simply not an option if you've got to sit for an hour for them to rechange - at a 'supercharger', no less. And if the supercharger is in use, that becomes two hours. With such long wait periods, it is entirely normal for a person to think "well... maybe 45 minutes will do... or perhaps 30"
Interesting. I read the initial articles with the data pulled from the car, the first few reviews of the car, and a couple of other articles, but I wasn't aware that his data was being contested.
I'm just saying generally, if it is proven that a journalist intentionally manipulates a product review, that should probably be the end of his career. As I stated, a proper investigation is always important before any action is taken.
> Didn't the data pulled from the car indicate that the reviewer was almost certainly trying to fabricate a bad review?
No, in fact several people who are prominent in the field of the use of data in journalism have written long essays on how this episode shows that data is subject to interpretation. It's very clear that Elon Musk looks at the data and sees one thing, and that the writer sees another; Those of us who have some degree of training in the field and little emotional attachment can look at the data and see that much of it is not particularly relevant to either story.
That said, the car reviewer was an idiot for not plugging the vehicle in overnight; although Tesla should have emphasized that in their instructional materials.
And Musk made his hole deeper with his whole "going for the throat" attitude. I mean, is that how he's going to react to a customer complaint?
If you make your living by writing, the only product you deliver to the world is your written word. I wasn't belittling journalism, I was simply stating what it is. Words can and do have a profound impact on the world. Language is arguably the most important invention in the history of humanity.
Yes, journalism often involves research, editing, and countless other tasks, but the end product, is the writing that is produced as a result of those processes.
A pure opinion piece shouldn't involve intentionally false claims, so it's not really what I was talking about. A product review should contain a mix of opinion and fact. Obviously, my information about the NYT review was out of date, and the claims about him have been proven false. That's why, as I stated, it's important for an investigation to take place.
As far as holding a journalist to his word, I stand by it. If a journalist holds an opinion that is wrong or simply unpopular, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's untrustworthy, but if it's a grossly misinformed opinion, it might make him look like an idiot. I don't advocate firing a person for writing about an unpopular or wrong opinion, but if someone intentionally makes a false claim, it's definitely a consideration.
I guess my problem is that you're defining journalistic contribution to society as merely 'being trustworthy', nothing else. Nothing about information dissemination or airing of issues. The sole contribution. It'd be like saying the sole contribution of police to society is looking recognisable by wearing a uniform.
The sole contribution of the journalist is the value that the reader extracts from his writing. In the highly specific example of a person writing a product review, his ability to give an honest assessment of the product is obviously the most significant concern.
In a more general sense, honesty is extremely significant in nearly every sort of non-fictional publication. As you said, there are some cases where fact-checking is either unimportant, or outright impossible, I didn't mention it because that's the sort of thing that should be taken for granted.
The sole contribution of the journalist is the value that the reader extracts from his writing.
This is overly idealistic. For example, journalists are quite adept at massaging public opinion for vested interests, often without the reader being aware that this is happening.
Customer: "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup."
Waiter: "But that's impossible, I've seen the recipe and fly is not an ingredient."
The biggest thing I've learned from serving customers is to approach complaints and challenges with the humility that hey, they just may be right. It is a mark of inexperience and immaturity to go on the offensive from the perspective of "stupid, bad customer, misunderstanding my product/service again."
(And I know that the reporter is not necessarily a customer, but as a reviewer, he represents their potential buying interests and should be treated as such.)