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.