Hacker News Reader

Comment by tallanvor | Hacker News Reader

Can you name an example where this news organization (Center for Investigative Reporting) has lied? If not, the fact that it has won a number of widely recognized rewards and has received a MacArthur grant should give you confidence that the reporters have been careful in their investigation and reporting.

View on HN

The very "news organization" that is reporting this story has a history of publishing lies about Tesla. Google "Tesla Yellow Tape" -- that scandal was originally reported by Reveal, disproven within minutes of its release, and still has not been retracted.

Whether or not they lied is in the end an implementation detail - a skilled amoral persuader doesn't need to lie to mislead. The toolbox for that includes being biased in what facts you mention, making "mistakes," and using your own words to connect the wrong dots (basically every way to introduce an error can be abused). Tesla claims that the reporters are focusing on a healthcare provider that they cut ties with while ignoring what they are actually doing at present - which is one example of what you could do to make your readers believe wrong things without lying.

All right then, can you name an example where this news organization (Center for Investigative Reporting) has misled readers to make them believe the wrong things?

There's no point in being a less sophisticated reader than you can be. You should never be ignorant about the techniques that dishonest writers can use to fool you, no matter what you are reading.

Justifying a presumptive skepticism of reporting on Tesla with such a nebulous pronouncement as "but reporters often lie ..." is pretty much the opposite of "sophisticated."

Again, That Tesla under reported injuries, which a 4 month OSHA investigation proved wasn't true. Is that enough of a lie to mistrust Reveal? You must surely know this.

As mentioned in the Reveal article, OSHA also found four other instances of improperly reporting injuries but could not report it due to the statute of limitations.

There are at least three prior examples of Reveal publishing falsehoods about Tesla:

* Intentional underreporting of injuries.

* Disallowing the use of yellow tape at the factory.

* Disallowing audible warnings ("beeps") on forklifts.

That Tesla under reported injuries, which a 4 month OSHA investigation proved wasn't true. Is that enough of a lie to mistrust Reveal?

I doubt that they lied, Reveal and the people behind them seem honest. On the other hand, Tesla and Elon are not known for honesty.

Are OSHA investigators known for letting companies get away with that sort of thing? My impression was the opposite.

The OSHA investigation did no such thing, and in fact the article included a direct quote from OSHA: "A Cal/OSHA spokeswoman said the investigation found four other “injury recording violations that fell outside of the statute of limitations.”"

"Outside of the statute of limitations" is very different than "proved wasn't true."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com