Business Insider is well known for low quality posts. Just looking at the headline you know they chose to run a story without fact checking anything this guy said.
They are factually reporting that everything is sourced from Reuters.
If you want to take issue with what you see as "poor reporting" then take issue with the source:
Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective
Wheels falling off cars at speed.
Suspensions collapsing on brand-new vehicles. Axles breaking under acceleration.
Tens of thousands of customers told Tesla about a host of part failures on low-mileage cars.
The automaker sought to blame drivers for vehicle ‘abuse,’ but Tesla documents show it had tracked the chronic ‘flaws’ and ‘failures’ for years.
It sounds as though there is more than "one guy" and that the claims made are backed by documents.
But that being said: the facts on the ground seem to be solid. We can discuss the Reuter's article instead and try to elevate the discussion here.
So blogspam without adding anything or checking authenticity is great reporting now?
> If you want to take issue with what you see as "poor reporting" then take issue with the source:
Reporting from a source means you take responsibility for it. If a publication keeps reposting poor reporting as fact while posting sources, it's a bad publication, and people should definitely take issue with it. It doesn't absolve BI if Reuters is doing poor reporting.
Not to mention a publication just reposting content from another source without fact checking of their own is just content-stealing blogspam with clickbait titles.
Reuters did the in-depth fact-chasing. Maybe this story should point to the original article instead?
It looks like this $14,000+ repair bill is real, confirmed by Reuters.
But even worse is that they didn't ask him for the claim report from the insurance company.
Reuters cites official documents reviewed by Reuters staff, 20+ interviews with customers and 9+ interviews with managers or service technicians.
That... seems quite comprehensive to me? They've got customer-side, they've got insurance side, they've even got Tesla's side here. How much more evidence or citations do you want from a story like this?
Yes, that would be a good thing to do.
Here's some quotes from the article:
> A Tesla owner received a $14,000 repair bill for a day-one issue with his Model Y, Reuters reported.
> Reuters found that Tesla had faced thousands of complaints over suspension and steering issues.
> Jain told Reuters ...
> The Reuters investigation — which cited interviews with more than 20 customers and 9 Tesla workers, as well as thousands of internal documents
I guess it'd have been possible for them to explain more that Reuters had done the investigation.
The BI piece doesn’t really contextualise it well, and I’d agree that linking to the Reuters piece would better, but it doesn’t seem that egregious.
(I suspect that the reason the BI piece exists and is linked to in the first place is that the Reuters piece is _very long_, and a lot of people won’t have the patience to read it.)
Or Tesla being very weird about fixing failures in their vehicles.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-mu...
Maybe you should read the story and not just the headline.