[DanBlake]

This is a major blow to Broder. (Career ending?)

As unlikely as it may be, Imagine he was giving his best effort and his car did act as he wrote. What shitty luck.

One thing is for sure- Reviewing a Tesla is a risky thing to do. Most other car companies wouldn't go out in public to say the review was incompetent/fake/staged.

[corresation]

This is a major blow to Broder. (Career ending?)

Is it? Musk again seems petty and vindictive, and he is quite transparently very carefully selecting pieces that essentially pitches to the converted.

The editor gave a very coached response that was hardly the win that Musk seems to think it was.

[revelation]

In Germany, if you ask your employer for a job reference, he has to write it in the most positive words or invite a lawsuit. This leads to the bizarre situation where in such a job reference, everything is a testament to the capabilities of the employee. You can only detect the intended statement by comparing various levels of exaltation and looking for key phrases.

How does this relate to Sullivans statement? It's the same situation: you can not openly condemn the work of a colleague or the NYT as a whole. So you write everything in the most conflict-averse way as possible. That is why its such a "coached" response and 1/2 of it is even the quote from a Tesla supporter.

But frankly, everything you need to know about Broder is in the headline:

Problems With Precision and Judgment

[iyulaev]

In Germany, if you ask your employer for a job reference, he has to write it in the most positive words...

The US, in my experience, is no different, whether it be job references or letters of rec. Good writers will be able to use nuance to make their meaning clear, and good readers must be able to interpret the nuances appropriately.

[corresation]

The job of a public editor is wholly to fact check and criticize their own newspaper, which itself lends credibility to both themselves and the paper (because a paper that is its own worse critic seems above reproach). They have no boundary on tearing into their own paper.

However the primary complaint of the editor is effectively that the author used poor judgement in not getting every single detail absolutely right with pinpoint accuracy, particularly in dealing with anything to do with Tesla. They said that they turned the temperature down at a certain point, for instance, giving Musk the ammunition to cry outrage when his own data showed that not much further in the journey the temperature went to the minimum for over 50 miles of the journey (which, at the slow speeds recorded, would have been over an hour). It's things like that which have been the topic of most outage about the NYT article, despite not changing the actual substance of the article whatsoever.

[DanBlake]

I think the public perception of broder is that hes either:

1) Malicious/Lies to obtain desired result

2) Incompetent

Neither bodes well for him.

[trotsky]

This episode started with Tesla claiming fabrication and a breech of journalistic ethics but ended with Tesla misquoting the times and highlighting imprecise record keeping.

If anything happened, the journalist was vindicated.

[protomyth]

You would think that, but it is the New York Times and this stuff happens all the time in the politics section (blatant lying and lack of fact checking[saying the ND Senator is the SD Senator]) and nothing comes of it.

[manaskarekar]

I love it.

No matter who's right or wrong here, the next person to review a Tesla will think twice before going about the usual raised-pinky bullshit write-up.

I love this whole episode, irrespective of who's right or wrong for so many reasons.

A CEO pin pointing bullshit (alleged) to such a degree and tech/auto journalism getting a nice dose of facts.

[venus]

I think a more likely outcome is that the next person will think twice about reviewing a Tesla at all.

[waterlesscloud]

People keep saying this, but there's no way that's the outcome.

People review Teslas because there's a market for the reviews. That market has only increased.

Rather than fewer reviews, it's virtually certain there will be more than there would have been otherwise.

Reviewers will, however, be far more careful with the details they report, and that's good for everyone.

[robryan]

Had he not been though this article would have counted against tesla mostly unchallenged. In this case he has forced some concessions from the paper which may make the difference when people are researching the car for possible purchase.

[enraged_camel]

>>The editor gave a very coached response that

If by "coached" you mean "squirmy", yes. I mean, she refused to take a stance on the issue and instead tried to play the role of an impartial observer, and failed completely.

[waterlesscloud]

Would you trust any details Broder reports?

I wouldn't. He's proven to at best be very sloppy with the details.

[flyinRyan]

Are you kidding? This was probably great for Broder's career. For sure he has more followers as a result of this.

And you're right, most car companies wouldn't ever let themselves look so petty and unprofessional. If they did, you can bet that a lot more journalists would line up hoping to stir some major controversy!