"Some suppliers contacted about the request said they were unaware of such a demand."
=> They didn't find any other suppliers who had received the said memo.
The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reputable sources for business journalism. Claiming that they would publish this article without proper vetting is ridiculous and equating it to "fake news" is shameful.
After the market closed, Woodward came out and categorically denied the WSJ's report, saying that it was not in talks. Period.
Its not necessarily nefarious, but the WSJ does in fact publish stories that rely on questionable sources. It's absolutely not out of the question that that could have happened here as well.
Note that since [1] was published, Woodward has not been acquired by Boeing, and its stock took a dive after the WSJ's poorly sourced story caused the stock to shoot up ~10% when it published. A lot of people that bought it on the WSJ's bad report lost a lot of money.
1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospac...
Also, if you're going to create throwaway accounts just to comment you might want to remember which one you're logged into.
"Several hours after The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks, Woodward issued a news release saying that it “is not in discussions with Boeing over a possible acquisition of Woodward... After the statement, the people familiar with the matter said the companies remained in talks."
The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. There's no doubt that the vetting process for industry sources is extensive. Remember when a right wing group tried to approach the Washington Post with a fake story and how quickly they were able to expose it? It's entirely possible for sources to give occasionally incorrect or unreliable information based on changing events, but the notion that the WSJ consistently relies on "questionable sources" is ignorant of how extensive the process is.
Just because it isn't transparent (which is precisely to protect the quality of their sources) it doesn't mean it isn't reliable.
This is a bullshit appeal to authority.
Let's be very clear about the process:
* The WSJ reports the claims of anonymous sources. It bases entire reports off these claims and makes no effort to provide verifiable evidence of what it is reporting.
* When called on the sordid affair the WSJ and its defenders insist the paper is a serious journalist effort.
This happens over and over at major American newspapers to the extreme detriment of the American people. And yet, here we are again in 2018.
Here's an idea: instead of appealing to authority why not provide evidence? Why not make the sources go on record? Or provide verifiable evidence of the source's anonymous claims? Isn't this what journalism actually is?
This is not to say that Musk would definitely do such a thing. However, the employee(s) who talked to the WSJ are risking personal legal liability for talking to a journalist.
Any journalist worth their salt is going to allow sources to go on “deep background” when appropriate.
I write all this as a soon to be Tesla customer. Yes, asking for manufacturer rebates is not completely unheard of, but it’s also the case that this very rarely happens.
If you’re thinking there’s a conspiracy, keep in mind the WSJ’s auto reviewer just published an overwhelmingly positive review of the Model 3 this week, which Musk retweeted.
US libel and defamation law puts newspapers in legal jeopardy if they intentionally publish false information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan). News Corp has a couple billion reasons to let the WSJ’s newsroom do a thorough and honest job.
Do you really need someone to explain to you why this is a silly idea?
"Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed."
The second source the WSJ found was Tesla itself. Uninformed assertion does not make for a proper, useful Hacker News comment.
They literally said that they WERE seeking price reductions for past contracts.
Is this really the hill to die on? A story that was confirmed by the direct source that this was regarding.
Is Reuters reputable enough to question the sensationalism in WSJ? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/26/the-sensati...: "In any case, it’s clear from the photograph and the two main stories on the WSJ’s front page that the paper is aggressively becoming both sensationalist and political. That might be a sensible move, from the point of view of selling copies, especially on the newsstand. But it will also inevitably serve to erode the trust that many people, on Wall Street especially, have in the reporting of the WSJ."
However it has a long history of publishing sensationalist articles especially about Tesla. I remember the articles about executives stepping away, NTSB probes, yellow lines, bankruptcy ... The recent article by Dan on how good Model 3 is is the only positive article I remember on WSJ about Tesla.
Do you remember any of them being factually incorrect?
You are implying bias, where I see a troubled company.
Can you name another instance where the WSJ wrote negatively about a company and it turned out to be false? As a subscriber, why the sudden skepticism?
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-satellite-believed-lost...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/probes-point-to-northrop-grumma...
It is possible to be extremely biased against an entity that has real issues, just like a paranoid can have real enemies.
Apple would never have survived if they had not been run so conservatively, which speaks to the efforts of people other than Jobs and Gates.
At the end of 1997 their 10-K says they had around $1.4B dollars in cash, and around $900M in long term debt.
The 2000 10-K shows they had $4 billion in cash and short term investments compared to $300 million in long term debt.
So WSJ is beyond reproach and criticism? WSJ has had problems in the past with their reporting. Nobody is beyond reproach, especially a company owned by rupert murdoch.
If you have an issue with the guy's comment, why not point that out instead of attacking him for being "shameful" for criticizing the wsj?
https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329866441ec4089760f
"It's Not Just The Editorial Page: Study Finds WSJ's Reporting On Climate Change Also Skewed"
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-th...
It's worrisome the social media campaign to quash criticism of the corporate media.
The parent comment was edited so of course there's no way you could have known, but it had previously equated the WSJ to being no better than "fake news." I think a fair interpretation of "fake news" is inflammatory information that's intentionally misleading and has no ties to any sort of reality.
In this age of misinformation, I think it's important to support and recognize quality sources of information and education. Comparing the WSJ to a fake news publication is disrespectful and ignorant and I think it's worth calling out.
I didn't realize he said WSJ is fake news. That is a bit hyperbolic but that's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it.
> In this age of misinformation, I think it's important to support and recognize quality sources of information and education
In the age of misinformation, it is more critical that we hold a light to established news sources. Especially those that people blindly accept on faith.
> Comparing the WSJ to a fake news publication is disrespectful and ignorant and I think it's worth calling out.
So what if it was disrespectful? That's his opinion. Why attack him for it? Should he attack you for blindly accepting the WSJ?
WSJ is just a company. Why are you so offended? There's plenty the WSJ did for people to disrespect it. Obviously there's plenty they did for you to respect it. Whatever happened to respecting each other opinions?
You can disagree with him without calling him ignorant and attacking the guy.
- The supplier provided the memo.
- The memo included that all suppliers were asked.
- Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo, but confirmed that it had asked this of some suppliers.
Tesla confirmed that it was seeking "price reductions." Tesla's statement is not confirmation that they are running to suppliers asking for refunds.
Asking “do you want 95% now or see whether we can pay back 100% in 20 days, when we have to pay you?” is fairly standard practice for companies that are running low on cash.
If all parties involved think there’s a >5% chance they won’t be able to eventually pay back, the rational thing to do is to accept that offer. Also, the first to accept the offer is more likely to get the money.
(But _if_ the end result is bankruptcy, the trustee appointed might order you to pay back that money, so that debtors who have more rights to be repaid can be paid back with it)
"Tesla Inc. TSLA -2.08% has asked some suppliers to refund a portion of what the electric-car company has spent previously, ..."
That is a refund, you can't explain it any other way.
They have a memo, they talked to Tesla who do not appear to challenge their narrative. Plus, it's a business story in the WSJ, not some random blog post.
The pedo thing was a stupid mistake stemming from anger that got lit up by accusations by someone criticizing what Elon probably perceived as sincere offer of help, and he says to have later apologized.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537 https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-full-story-behind-Elon-Musks...
Either way, I’m highly suspicious of articles like this considering the personal gain some individuals stand to win.
Telsa is on record saying that it's true, so what exactly is fake?
> Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed. The company called such requests a standard part of procurement negotiations to improve its competitive advantage, especially as it ramps up Model 3 production.
What Tesla confirmed is nothing more than standard business practice—and indeed good business practice. You should always be questioning whether your suppliers are giving you their best possible price.
There's a very clear pattern of headlines about a potential Tesla doomsday that's almost always rooted in rumors or anonymous tips...and guess what...sometimes you look up the analyst and find that they're openly shorting Tesla.
This article is sensationalized. We all now know that this is standard industry practice yet the article strongly implies that without these retroactive discounts, Tesla won't be able to stay afloat. What did we find out since this garbage publication? That the discounts they're asking for aren't as retroactive as the original article claimed, and the consequences are completely baseless.
I'm just pointing out this aggressive pattern of Tesla shorters taking these rumors and running wild with them. I don't need to read every unfounded rumor to comment on it.
If I was more savvy, I would look into today's selloff and see if that analyst Elon made fun of on the earnings call finally dumped his borrowed shares but that's way too much effort to justify my internet comment.
Looks like it worked: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-stocks/tesla-shares...
Why do you think only one side is corrupt?
My god some of you people are you going to look foolish.