[ignostic]

> "The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our Model S and no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened."

Contrast with this:

> "The Times have maintained that the article was done in good faith, and that it is an honest account of what happened."

It's hardly accurate to say that the Times "reversed its opinion." Revised, maybe, but the article he's referring to did more side-stepping than anything.

Elon isn't winning points with me by trying to spin the story to sound more favorable.

[shrikant]

You're right, but this is a PR battle at this stage, and these are rarely known to be won on nuance and accuracy.

[ignostic]

Perhaps that's true for most people, but I expected more from both sides.

[streptomycin]

What more did you expect from the NY Times? They seem to be quite forthcoming and balanced.

[crusso]

Their reporter was busted for at best being sloppy and at worst lying to grind an axe against electric vehicles -- and they delivered a mealy mouthed half-admission of fault. A controversial, sensational story that isn't "unassailable" and was shown to be very questionable should have been withdrawn without mincing words. If they want to run the tests again under more rigorous circumstances, then they're free to do so.

We really should expect better from those with the job of giving us information.

[dllthomas]

A journalist who took better notes?