[InclinedPlane]

I'm sure there are tons of small nuances and subtle details here, but at the end of the day I'm not sure they matter. The ultimate question is whether or not the NYTimes reporter presented an honest story, and that appears to be far from true. it certainly looks like he went out of his way to try to manufacture a story that isn't reflective of actual experience. But even if that's not the case there's more than enough evidence that he twisted the account and left out crucial details in the service of titilation and excitement rather than factual accuracy.

Musk's job is to sell his cars, we accept that he might present things in a manner that is most flattering to his products. That's ok as long as he doesn't outright lie or mislead, we wouldn't expect anything else from any other company. But the reporter's job is to present the truth to his readers, and if he not only fails at that job but goes out of the way to present falsehoods what faith can his readers have in him? At this point, what makes him better than a reporter for a tabloid? Why should anyone believe anything he writes? If a reporter doesn't have a reputation for factual accuracy what good are they?

P.S. I'm reminded of Dateline NBC's "investigation" of the GM C/K series pickup trucks. The trucks were fundamentally of an unsafe design, with side mounted external gas tanks. But Dateline's crash tests included adding model rocket engines to ensure that the rupture of the gas tank caused an explosion, without revealing that to the viewers. And that, I think, is the problem here where the reporter was not content to let the facts stand on their own and went to every effort to juice up the story (although not the car). Investigative journalism is a hard job, but when you make that leap and start adding embelishments you are no longer doing journalism you are entertaining.