[hatbert]

It's hard for me to square your assertion that the article was not a hit piece with the verbiage of the article. For example, the reporter used heavily loaded language to convey the idea (without saying so explicitly, because that would be a lie) that he had to turn off the heater and drive dangerously slow in order to reach the next charger. When called out on it, the Times' ombudsman wrote it off as sloppy note-taking. There were a series of such small 'mistakes.'

> However, no one ever apologized for essentially calling the journalist's entire professional reputation into question.

And why should they? It's true that unusually cold weather causes unusually high battery drain, but the fundamental reason the reporter ran of out charge is simply that he tried to. At his last "supercharger" stop, he unplugged the car about 30 minutes before it would have finished charging. Had he waited even an additional 5 minutes, there would have been more than enough charge to return to New York at a comfortable speed, even allowing for the cold weather overnight.

The reporter has nobody but himself to blame for his soiled reputation. Frankly, I think there was an interesting angle about the limitations of electric vehicles, but he tried to push the envelope a little too far. The cold weather limitations of the battery would have made for good reading. The need to plug in overnight and the amount of time required to charge in cold weather could have also been interesting points. Lost in the noise is the fact that he wasn't able to gain charge on a 120V outlet in cold weather (the battery heater used more power than the outlet provided).

But, no, he tried to shoot for the moon with a story about how you just can't trust these newfangled contraptions, and he burned his fingers. Boo hoo.