But even worse is that they didn't ask him for the claim report from the insurance company.
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?
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.)
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.