[mythrowaway0]

Speaks for not being able to find the charging point in the parking lot, perhaps? Don't forget that Musk formulated his assertion of Broder's motivation based on a data log of the car traveling between 5mph and 15mph for 0.6 miles. That sounds almost exactly like my average journey to find a parking spot at the mall.

But no, you're right, let's assume a long-term New York Times veteran lied in the paper, intentionally. That's a safer explanation in the face of your call for Occam's Razor...

[veemjeem]

John Broder does have an affinity for writing articles about big oil. I don't exactly want to assume he was paid under the table to denounce electric cars, but it's odd for a writer to have 90% of their articles being related to oil: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...

On Feb 8, 4 days before the controversial tesla article, he wrote one about how poorly the Chevrolet Volt & Ford Transit performed. I think he already decided on the tone of the article before he drove the Tesla.

His other articles about oil drilling claim that they help with job creation... you be the judge.

[Nrsolis]

I've had two experiences with the press. I have many friends who have also had far more interaction with the press than I have.

I will tell you this:

Both times I made it into the paper, my feeling while giving the interview was that the reporter was writing the story their way despite what I was saying. I was asked leading questions, questions that asked me to come down on one side or another of a complex issue. I was asked repeatedly the same question in different ways to elicit a response that would support a conclusion I didn't agree with.

My friends confirmed my suspicions when they saw the articles that were written. If you dont think that a significant percentage of the articles you read in the paper are pushing a particular viewpoint despite contrary evidence, I'd like a little of what you are smoking.

Just in case you were asking, one of the reporters I'm talking about works for the New York Times. This is the article I was talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/national/18harvard.html?pa...

[protomyth]

> His other articles about oil drilling claim that they help with job creation... you be the judge.

Since I live in ND, we have lots of oil drilling going on, and the Dec 2012 unemployment rate was 3.2% compared to the national rate of 7.8%; I would find that a factually true statement.

[roc]

And how's that scale when we're talking about a population larger than 700k residents?

Just because something is factually true in a narrow context does not mean it remains factually true when abstracted to a generality.

[protomyth]

Texas seems to be doing fine too and they have a bit of a population. The line you quoted is factual. Oil employees a lot of people and generates a lot of money.

[Nrsolis]

We had a ton of fine women working as telephone operators once too. My father was a typewriter repairman for a bit.

When was the last time you saw either one of those?

Oil's biggest advantage (other than the massive amount of energy density) is that the full cost of acquiring it isn't factored into the cost per barrel. Since oil is both a commodity and a strategic resource, the government has committed its full resources in the aim of securing supply.

You can argue if this is or isn't a good thing, but you can't argue the fact that it happens.

[protomyth]

I have no idea how your comment relates to anything I wrote. Oil employees a lot of people. The reporter's comment was factual. If we are talking subsidies then "green" isn't exactly dieting at the federal trough.

[SilasX]

This is fantasy. Slap a $20/ton or $50/ton carbon tax (highest non-crackpot estimate) on oil and people will still gladly pay it. The idea that oil use would severely diminished by such a cost internalization is pure wishful thinking.

[niggler]

It's sad to see any factual criticism of electric vehicles being interpreted as support of big oil. It's not a religion!

[fnordfnordfnord]

Lousy education, lousy average pay vs other places, lousy level of social services.

Sure, we've got a lower cost of living than most places, but I'd argue that we've also got a lower quality of life.

When the oilfield is hot, we have lots of high paying jobs for people. Fortunately for us, it's hot right now. What they'll all do when the current boom dries up, I haven't any idea.

[protomyth]

The reporter's statement is "oil drilling creates jobs". Do you believe he was right or wrong? He and I have made no mention of anything but that statement.

[roc]

Again, "a lot" is a statement that is only true in context. And particularly given that Oil's ability to employ is completely dependent upon geological formations that no-one has any control over, it's disingenuous to try to generalize it beyond the context where it's true.

[protomyth]

Farming is geographically limited and it is a rather large employer in the US. Oil has a effect on more industries than just energy. Tesla would not be able to build their cars with oil products. It's disingenuous to not look at actual employment numbers and reach of industry when trying to say something factual isn't.

[glesica]

That has nothing to do with anything. The point is that he appears to highlight the positive effects of oil drilling but not the negative effects (environmental degradation, etc.).

[makomk]

Not the negative effects? "Shell Violated Air Permits for Arctic Ships, E.P.A. Says"? "Interior Dept. Expedites Review of Arctic Drilling After Accidents"? "Rig Runs Aground in Alaska, Reviving Fears About Arctic Drilling"?

[foobarqux]

"Shell Violated Air Permits for Arctic Ships, E.P.A. Says"

Frankly that article reads like "EPA claims some infractions but they are no big deal". I can't imagine anyone reading that article and coming away very critical of Shell.

[smackfu]

>he wrote one about how poorly the Chevrolet Volt & Ford Transit performed

Is the claim that they are actually doing very well, and he was incorrect in his article? Or that he is biased merely for writing an article based on negative facts?

[dllthomas]

The notion was that a pattern of articles that tend to support the same group should raise our estimate of a bias in favor of that group.

All of them could be perfectly accurate, incidentally - consider a journalist who investigates 100 stories for every one he publishes and only publishes those that are favorable; while none of the articles would contain actual falsehoods, clearly this is a bias.

Whether that's the case here is a much deeper question that I can't answer from my extremely limited skimming of the available media and this thread.

[twoodfin]

How is that odd? Energy issues are his beat.

[CapitalistCartr]

Energy is more than Oil, gasoline, and internal combustion engines. A failure to recognize that by a NYT reporter is odd.

[twoodfin]

Huh? He writes about many, many other energy-related topics. Just page through his stories. Climate, natural gas, EPA regulations, wind tax credits ...

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...

That this guy could be repeatedly accused here of being an industry shill reflects much more poorly on hn than on him.

[foobarqux]

Do those articles have a negative or positive sentiment for the large incumbent industries like oil?

[newhouseb]

Here's a satellite view of the rest area with the charging stations:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=milford+travel+plaza&hl=e...

The street view here is outdated but I'm pretty sure you would see them immediately as you exit off the highway and, end to end, the rest area is about 0.25 miles. I don't think there's any other way to accumulate 0.6 miles in this rest stop without driving around in circles.

[pbreit]

So one circle would do it like, say, if he missed the first right turn and continued straight?

[jasonlotito]

If this was the only discrepancy, I'd be more skeptical. However, there are a large number of problems with the reporting. Large enough that said reporter has an obligation to respond.

> let's assume a long-term New York Times veteran lied in the paper

What you are asking us to believe than is that Musk faked all this data. Because if he didn't fake the data, then the NYTimes story still doesn't add up, regardless of speculation on his activities.

Furthermore, you are asking us to believe that numerous other reviews by respectable, veteran reports, were wrong.

Maybe this report is the one man speaking out against a large conspiracy of a company and numerous reporters. But it's on him to prove now.

[crusso]

let's assume a long-term New York Times veteran lied in the paper, intentionally

If anything, I think that some veteran reporters get full of themselves and become unafraid of slanting things according to their biases as they get older. Look at the trouble Dan Rather got into at the end of his career because he was determined to sink George W. Bush.

[enraged_camel]

What does his being a veteran have anything to do with his affinity to lie?

The main factor that affects someone's likelihood of lying is whether they think they can get away with it. Broder most likely knew that the car was logging data. However, he probably didn't know just how detailed the logging was, and assumed it was too rudimentary to refute the kind of story he was cooking up in his head before he even started the drive.

[Robin_Message]

It doesn't seem likely the reporter lied intentionally - or at least, not consciously.

However, didn't we see that long apology yesterday about how easy it is to lie to yourself and others, even when truth is everything to you? This is why we have double blind medical trials etc. – because people are biased and can't help but lie to keep their preconceptions true.

[raverbashing]

It's a valid point, but if he did really have difficulties in finding the charging station he should have said so.