Hacker News Reader

Comment by aresant | Hacker News Reader

Musk is filtering the NYT's response when he says:

"the Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment," “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that are unassailable.”"

Let me try to cherry pick some points from the very same NYT response (1), spun towards the opposite conclusion:

"Mr. Musk presented his data "in the most damaging (and sometimes quite misleading) way possible" and "I am convinced that [Broder] . . . told the story as he experienced it."

My point isn't that my choice quotes above are accurate, but that Musk's assessment is disingenuous to the NYT's response, and that's in the first paragraph of his article.

I'm not sure what Musk is trying to accomplish at this point, his "spin" is transparent and it feels condescending.

Tesla's goodwill in my eyes is fast eroding.

(1) http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-wi...

View on HN

C'mon, the entire response is a joke. The NY Times is just trying to save their face, after precipitously baking Broder without knowing the facts (and knowing that Tesla had that amount of data of the test drive).

Ms. Sullivan herself admits that "Did he [Broder] use good judgment along the way? Not especially." And also that "...Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored." Still, she insists that it was all done in good faith and integrity.

I'm sorry, but this is The New York Times. You can't just say "oh, our journalist just messed up by NOT following common sense instructions, and NOT taking proper notes, and still writing a misleading article [about the wrong topic -- the car -- rather than the super charge stations which was the original intention]. But hey, it was all in good faith, so no harm".

To me this is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect to hear from the editor of the NYT. She missed the opportunity to recognize the flaws of the original article, apologize on behalf of their journalist for not taking proper diligence and care that you'd expect from such publication, and offer readers (& Tesla) to re-do the entire test and publish the results again.

The record clearly establishes that Broder engaged in unrealistic driving patterns to get the car to run out of juice--stuff like driving around in circles and ignoring range warnings--and then went on to lie and mislead people about it.

There's a good point to be made here about arguing: like baseball, choose the juciest, easiest pitches and then swing for the fences. Don't try to argue every point and stretch the truth to do so, because it damages credibility. Musk tried to argue more than he should have.

So we have a whole lot of people attacking Musk when the NYT did a provably dishonest smear job and is trying not to admit it.

This has turned into a political argument. We might as well be arguing vim vs emacs. But I don't see any evidence that the review was intentionally dishonest or intended to be any sort of smear. Driving around for ~5 minutes in a giant parking lot doesn't seem especially unrealistic to me (if it was intended to run down the battery, it was a pretty weak attempt). The advice he says he received may sound made up to you, but that's certainly not proven (And shouldn't it be? Tesla doesn't tape its customer service calls?).

How is it we are still debating parts of this which have clearly been settled and which there are clearly logical explanations for?

engaged in unrealistic driving patterns to get the car to run out of juice--stuff like driving around in circles

Broder's response: I drove around the Milford service plaza in the dark looking for the Supercharger, which is not prominently marked. I was not trying to drain the battery.

Musk accused Broder of "driving around in circles" for 0.6 miles. What kind of car would this be if an extra 0.6 miles was sufficient to cross the line into "the battery is now fully drained"?

Occum's Razor dictates that the reason for driving around "in circles for 0.6 miles" is easily explained as being lost while trying to find a location you've never been to before. Someone doing extra malicious driving would probably go further than an extra 3000 feet.

What is more realistic than driving around lost?

I don't think its been settled. Mr Broder lost a lot of credibility when outright lying about how fast he was going for the entire trip. Why wouldn't he lie about whether he saw the charging station. Since we don't have any data about what was going through his mind, Broder knows he can say anything in order to defend himself.

But the thing is - I don't care about Broder. We wouldn't be seeing these posts if it were just about Broder. This story is about Tesla's car!

I'd say it's undisputably true that Broder comes across as lacking professionalism. So sure, his review embellished the truth. But what exactly were you expecting?

The whole review set up is designed to be personal. It's not a scientific experiment with hundreds of trials, decent statistics, reproducible environments; it's not about the truth; it's about communicating with human beings: how does it feel to actually drive the car? It's an anecdote - and that includes all the good things (empathy, personal interest, real-life) and the bad things (non-reproducible, not your life, colored by that drivers opinion). Tesla knew this - but people make choices not just for purely rational reasons, so the human connection is one they wanted. They agreed to this test knowing full well that the range involved was going to be tricky at those temperatures, especially for a driver that doesn't have a clue about electrical cars. They also knew that the point of a review is to see what a car can do; so it's not unexpected for the reviewer to push the car a little further that you'd normally risk it.

And at the end of the day - I don't know Broder, I don't care about Broder - I don't really care about Tesla. I care about the future development of electric cars. And whatever Broder did or didn't do, the car didn't fare particularly well, and in a situation a normal car (and certainly a diesel) would have been able to do without any refill at all. Sure, you could have avoided the complete breakdown by not finishing the trip on schedule, but that's not a great alternative.

From my point of view it was never about Broder, it was about Tesla's car being put through a somewhat unfair test - but even taking into account the test's flaws, the car just doesn't come out looking good. Put it this way - I wouldn't have wanted to be Broder.

I found it extremely hard to believe that is the case based on 3 things:

1. I've seen many comments suggesting that the parking lot is well lit in the night and the Supercharger is especially easy to spot and hard to miss, which directly contradicts to what Broader claims: "dark, unlighted, not marked". [1](http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-w...)

2. Here is a video of how well-lit and easy to spot: [2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3fO_OHpyYw)

3. Here is the Google map: [3](http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Milford,+Conn.,+supercharger&#...) If Google's data is to be trusted, each loop is less than 100m, and 0.6miles is roughly 10 laps.

Realistic scenario for driving around and lost? I think not.

So... He drove around in circles for five whole minutes as part of conspiracy to run down the battery? Five extra minutes of driving has a material impact on the range car? It is not more likely that he was simply lost?

I think you're looking at the wrong thing in the video you linked to. Those bright, well-lit things are gas pumps! The superchargers are the hard-to-see things the driver pulls up to at the end. I'm pretty sure I would have driven past them and I'm absolutely certain I'd have driven more than half a mile if I were intentionally trying to run down the battery.

2. Is it really easy to spot? Note that Superchargers are at the very end of the video. No signs, no marks, no lights, just a few white columns near plain looking parking spots.

3. I've just measured with Google Maps ruler. It takes about 0.3 miles to drive all the ways on the parking lot and around the gas station (just near the Superchargers). So it's about 2 laps really. He could also drive another 0.2 miles if he mistakenly went around nearby McDonald's.

I think the Youtube video makes it look easier than it might be in real life since the driver goes directly to the Supercharger station (or what I assume is the station).

The rest area looked rather large and in the video I didn't see any signs directing the driver which path to take through the parking lot to get there. I could see someone who might be slightly distracted (or not yet familiar enough with the landmarks) driving through the gas station instead of turning right and missing the whole thing, and having to circle back around.

My view was that the unrealism of these assertions have been established in this and previous threads. Now they've also been established in replies below. Also, when he was driving around in circles--in a tiny lot--with a clearly marked charger--he was at 0 range, consistent with someone trying to drain the battery.

There's also the matter of him being wrong about speed and cruise control and temperature settings and range. There's also the matter of Broder being wrong in his broad thesis (testing the supercharger network) since he refused to charge when he needed to.

I should have edited support for these things things in, but had to catch a plane, and now other people have already done it in this thread. But I thought true, and discussed, and re-discussed, statements would not be judged so harshly by the mob. My mistake.

We call these sorts of things lies when they're said on Fox News--but defend distortions when the NYT does them against such an important cause and such an admirable company?

You have no facts to back anything of what you said up. And that "driving around in circles" bit is debatable when you actually see the chargers in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3fO_OHpyYw

Oh and that giant, lit up structure is NOT the chargers.

Have you never missed an exit, or attempted to find your way in an unfamiliar area? Half a mile is trivial.

Perhaps I'm outing myself as a klutz of a driver, but just this week I missed an exit and ended up on the Bay Bridge to Oakland (ta-da, 20 mile detour).

If I were actively trying to burn through mileage I could probably do a fair bit better.

"C'mon, the entire response is a joke."

If Musk could really back up all of his accusations, why would he be "satisfied" with this "joke" of a response?

It seems Musk prematurely accused NYT of "faking" the review, then realized they couldn't back up that accusation, and are taking this opportunity to back down.

Yeah, it looks to me like, after the Top Gear thing, they ascribed to malice what could be explained by stupidity.

But, they made a bunch of noise, got some more headlines, cast doubt on the negative review, and gave their fans a good story to use at the water cooler. Time to declare victory and drop the issue.

Musk comes across as somewhat delusional. Or really dishonest - but I suspect he really sees the world this way.

In no way shape or form did Musk's claim turn out to be true, which indeed is just like the Top Gear thing.

I particularly love how Musk seems to blame the choices of the reviewers - i.e. selective reporting, cherry-picking - for the car's undenied failures. And of course that can be entirely reasonable; if you make the wrong choices things won't work. But then he turns around and does exactly the thing he's accusing the reviewers of: he cherry-picks his data, and selectively interprets it to present it as some kind of conspiracy.

I can excuse an individual reporter for experiencing something in typically human fashion: i.e. colored by preference and ignorance, somewhat muddled and poorly remembered, and certainly not necessarily representative of the experience of others. On the other hand; Musk doesn't have those excuses. He has tons of quantitative data that he can review as often as he likes, in whatever detail he likes. He's presumably an expert on the car and knows of plausible explanations for various observations to be found in that data. He and this team have reviewed such data many times before. And yet, nevertheless, he chooses to cherrypick his observations and read into them what he'd like to see - namely that the failures are entirely the reviewer's fault and in no way the car's. (I mean, that whole driving around in circles thing... or the exact moment the temperature changed...)

Worse, the test occurred in cooperation with Tesla, so they could have predicted at least a few of these issues. Why in the heavens did Musk agree to this review in this form when it was obviously not going to be an easy drive? Didn't they look at the weather forecast and know this was going to be a problem? Isn't it obvious that a reviewer accustomed to convential cars won't be an expert in electrical range-maximization?

I'd love to see electrical cars work. It's a shame that Musk seems to think (self-)deception is the way to convince the world that they're ready for long-haul travel.

> If Musk could really back up all of his accusations, why would he be "satisfied" with this "joke" of a response?

Frankly, he's probably still not satisfied. But he realizes there's no point in trying to slay the New York Times. That's not his dragon to kill.

He's got other things to do, and the NYTimes writing terrible articles is not his interest or priority. Write a witty blog post and declare victory is the right choice here.

Perhaps it's right in the sense of good PR. But is it right in the sense of honest?

As a founder your job is to take the high road as much as possible while still pushing through the strengths of your company. It seems pretty obvious that NYT won't be changing their opinion, and maybe even reached out to Musk to confirm this suspicion. If Musk were to reply to this negatively he'd essentially be feeding an ever-lasting flame. He's taking the best parts, spinning them to those who care about his product, and is continuing on with building out a great product.

Not to mention, he's gotten a lot of good press from other media sources since (as he points out in his blog post).

Disagree. Go read the NYT editorial response, it's so full of spin it could serve as an amusement park ride. It only served to muddy the waters, give some kind of half-not-apology, in the hopes the issue would drop.

I'm surprised so many people are hating on Mr. Musk.

If Kim Jong-un said he was the Queen of Pluto and the Financial Times responded with "the Kim family are genetically engineered Nazis", I would still lose respect for the Financial Times.

Musk's portrayal of the New York Times's response is dishonest; that burden is not lightened by the Times's original article having been similarly inventive.

Being disappointed isn't the same thing as hating.

Can you elaborate on what you thought was "spin" or how the public editor was unfair?

Sure.

---------------

First the NYT says Broder was honest:

Mr. Broder and The Times have maintained that the article was done in good faith, and that it is an honest account of what happened.

Then the NYT says Broder was misleading (dishonest):

Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey

---------------

Next, the NYT says Broder should have taken more detailed logs:

A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs...

But next the NYT says more detailed logs are pointless:

I could recite chapter and verse of the test drive...I don’t think that’s useful here.

---------------

And the NYT says Border did the test drive in good faith:

I am convinced that he [Broder] took on the test drive in good faith

But then the NYT criticizes his good faith:

...there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable

---------------

That's just a quick snapshot of the whiplash-inducing spin in the NYT editorial.

It's possible to both do something in good faith and fail to be precise in your notes. The latter does not make you "dishonest".

I personally believe that errors of omission and misleading details are identical to dishonesty, but I understand not everyone may see it that way.

That is why I said it was misleading, and parenthesized my judgement of it (dishonest).

Only if it's intentional. I don't think it's possible to accidentally be dishonest.

NYT doesn't actually speak of errors of omission and misleading details anywhere. You can't just go making stuff up. To take what you quoted: Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey <-- what this means is NOT what you are pretending it means. It simply means "this wasn't done in a laboratory, so you can hardly expect everything to be correct up to 6 sig figs. Therefore, feel free to point out if some specific details aren't quite right."

Indeed. The NYT public editor didn't speak of, well, anything, anywhere; she just gave a politician's spin, designed to say the right dog whistles to the right parties and hope someone other than you will take the heat.

And political speeches are like yodeling: the point is to sound really nice, not to convey actual meaning.

It seems to me that when your boss, the person who jumped to your public defense immediately when criticized without first checking the facts, and the person who's businesses reputation is made or destroyed by the public perception of your trustworthiness - prints this about you, you've just been thrown under the bus:

"I’ve also had a number of talks with my brother, a physician, car aficionado and Tesla fan, who has helped me balance what might have been a tendency to unconsciously side with a seasoned and respected journalist – my own “confirmation bias.”

My own findings are not dissimilar to the reader I quote above, although I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it.

Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular, decisions he made at a crucial juncture – when he recharged the Model S in Norwich, Conn., a stop forced by the unexpected loss of charge overnight – were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama ending."

To me - that's like responding to a phone call about a reference for someone from a recruiter/employer with "Ummm, they're punctual, and, umm, they fit in OK socially - most of the time".

You wouldn't jump to employ a guy who can't arrange a much more glowing reference than that - and you wouldn't believe much of what Broder writes - at least not without expecting to read poor judgement and results of flawed decisions.

> I personally believe that errors of omission and misleading details are identical to dishonesty

Pot calling the kettle black there.

Agreed. While I feel Broder _did_ set out to do a sensationalist hatchet job - Musk certainly hasn't come out of this smelling of roses either.

I guess one can read the post and see what they want.

> Taking imprecise notes is sloppy, but it's not dishonest or even necessarily misleading. It certainly doesn't prove whether the review was done in good faith.

> I agree with the Public Editor that, at this point, parsing second-by-second detailed logs are unlikely to be illuminating unless they show some new rock-solid evidence of malfeasance.

> Your last point I don't follow at all. It's perfectly reasonable to believe the test drive was done in good faith and also believe that there is room for argument in some of the conclusions. I'm sure that's true for a great many reviews; it doesn't mean the review was malicious or even wrong.

I see nothing wrong in Musk defending his position vigorously because he had complete faith in the car but more so because the logs clearly indicate Broder forgot to top-off. The NYT review is damaging not only to Tesla's sales but also questions the viability of electric cars. I am ok with how Musk handled the situation and I don't think Tesla is going to lose any more goodwill in the long run any more than Apple lost during Steve Jobs' response during 'Antennagate'...the difference is that there is no damning evidence against the Tesla.

More importantly I feel that this incident has heralded a new era in media communications where the press can no longer wield this one-sided power over companies, now the companies are in a position to retort back.

I see something wrong in him mis-representing his opponent. Saying the New York Times "no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened" is a rose-tinted reading of the Times's response [1]. Granted, I may be projecting my Swiss sensibilities about what constitutes honest discourse.

[1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-wi...

Unfortunately for us Americans, the Swiss have had at least a couple of hundreds of years longer to evolve discourse in the public eye, depending on how you read your history.

While there have been exceptions, I would imagine that the first real wide-ranging impact of such discourse in public in the States here began in the previous decade.

I don't think it misrepresents it too much. It's a pretty 'squirmy' retraction.

Basically they are saying what Broder wrote was incorrect, and showed poor judgement, but without faulting Broder in any way. (As ridiculous as that sounds)

Lets be very clear - it is not a retraction.

Public Editor is not part if the newsroom. It is a role outside if it and she does not have any authority other than to post to her blog.

If there is a retraction it will be clearly posted on the original article.

Imagine, for a moment, that Broder had a more detailed record of his drive and had used it to make the article 100% truthful and accurate. Would it have been any more flattering to Tesla or to the Model S?

No, but it would have made him look like an idiot and made the article confusing and useless. If he had been doing his job properly, there would have been a do-over.

I don't know, but it would have removed my objections to Broder's work.

I do want journalists to produce 100% truthful and accurate work. Especially in a case where it is so very easy to actually be factual.

Fair enough, but there's a huge gap between "ideologically-motivated, intentionally dishonest smear campaign" and "essentially accurate review that was a little sloppy on some details"

This whole thing seems like pointless hair splitting between the Model S being very bad for road trips or only moderately bad for road trips.

In either case, take the train or rent a car. The car seems perfect for day to day driving.

IF you don't charge it fully (or charge it over-night)

I live in Australia and go bush/camping a fair bit. I'm not getting a Tesla for raodtrips any time soon. But If I was to drive MEL->SYD in it -- I'd be recharging in full at each super-charger along the way (assuming they existed)

I might have got the wrong end of the stick here, but I think he did. He wanted to test the super charger network, and then found after leaving the car in the cold overnight that although it had originally said he had the range to make it to the next supercharger, it now said that he didn't. Because of that he compromised and tried to top up with juice from a normal charger. That was the charger he didn't fill up completely from, where he did an unplanned and unexpected charge for approximately an hour (or approximately three quarters of an hour if you believe Tesla). Either way, he hadn't wanted to charge there in the first place, was keen to be moving again and believes that Tesla staff gave him the OK, telling him that the missing miles would come back once the car was going again.

From Tesla's original post: "For his first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%."

And the graph of battery levels shows what level he recharged to. http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

If he had charged to 100% for that last Supercharge - I wonder if the result would have been different.

looks like you're right.

For what it's worth, you weren't really going to go "bush/camping" in any of the Tesla Roadsters alternatives either. It's a high-end luxury sportscar. It's no more or less suitable for bush/camping trips than a 5 series BMW or an Audi A6.

And while it's clear it's not a suitable car for GT touring type roadtrips, it wouldn't be _too_ hard for a local Tesla dealer to set up a pair of Supercharger stations 280-320km outside both Sydney and Melbourne to make that trip viable - hell, with a decent espresso bar and a better-then-typical food establishment at each, they might even pay for themselves...

Fair enough. (I drive a Navara camping - I wouldn't take a 5 series)

I'd probably want 3 superchargers for the Hume (Wangaratta, Gundagai, Goulburn is my rough placement) (In large part this is because MEL -> CBR is probably too far for just one recharge - ie: Frankston to Tuggeranong is 737km)

A bunch of annoyed Model S owners recreated the trip recently in a convoy of 6-8, they all made it just fine without towing, etc. It doesn't seem bad for road trips in between the correct segments, of which there are more every month.

So some product enthusiasts get together to prove someone who has little experience with the product how wrong he was. Might have well as used Tesla engineers for all the credibility that has.

As in, enthusiasts are the last people I would care if they could do something. I have seen enthusiast get over a 1000 miles from the tank of a Passat but I would not vilify anyone else who could not.

Having read a few stories on both sides of the issue, including Consumers Reports own issues with the range displays provided by the car its clear that this car is only for enthusiasts / first-adopters at this stage.

It has quirks, guess what, quirks don't cut it in the transportation business. People just expect things to work. If your gasoline powered car started up cold and said you had only ten miles range and twenty minutes later reported sixty would you just shrug it off?

It really comes across that Tesla has some work to do on accurately representing the potential range of the car at all times. Read the Consumer's report story to understand the confusion that they ran into, now tell me, what do we expect from a reporter who hasn't driven the car until the day he was writing the story?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/tesla-model-s-w...

be a expert of or be a novice I am ok with both but dont fake being a expert and cast aspersion when you dont know the jackshit like "regenerative braking"

this car is only for enthusiasts / first-adopters at this stage

This is so totally correct, and I don't get why Tesla isn't OK with that message. Even though it absolutely isn't right for everyone or every situation, they are still selling them as fast as they can make them. Mainstream problems are for mainstream products. They don't apply here.

Unless you consider luxury car buyers to be strictly enthusiasts, I don't think that it is only for enthusiasts at this stage. Except for speed of refueling, it's objectively better than comparably priced luxury cars in almost every way. It didn't win the car of the year awards due to its novelty, if you look at the performance testing breakdowns for roundups including BMW's, Audi's, Maserati's, etc, it did exceptionally well by any standard.

When it's unusually cold, I expect some conservatism, which translates into charging more than I think I probably need to. It's a universal that a piece of technology will operate worse in extreme conditions than in optimal ones (I'd say 15 degree weather counts). The Model S' specificity probably hinders it in this case, since people would naturally build in some buffer in the cases where they have to read an imprecise readout. Since the range readout is so precise, the expanding range is definitely a kink that needs to be worked out.

Edit: My gasoline car will sometimes show my tank as almost empty when I first turn it on, but over the next 10 minutes, will slowly but magically reveal much more gas in the tank. I don't think it's unacceptable to have any kinks whatsoever in a car... they're pretty common actually. It's just that we haven't yet learned to deal with these ones like we have with the gasoline ones.

Phrases like "made it just fine without towing" and "between correct segments" just support the conclusion that the Model S is only moderately bad for road trips :)

Which is fine, if money were no object, I would have an electric city car for daily use as well as a big luxury car with heated seats and a huge gas tank when I wanted to go on road trips.

The towing remark was to say that it wasn't exactly borderline for any of the 8, that the reporter was the exception rather than the rule.

Meh, the segments cover every trip I take frequently on the west coast, and the same will be true on the east coast once I-95 is covered.

I don't think that should be the standard. Broder talks about a "normal" driver not wanting to wait for hours in a diner while the car recharges. But what really characterizes most "normal" drivers I would say is that they will not pull out of a refueling station when the meter is clearly showing they will not make it to the next.

If Broder had behaved more responsibly/reasonably his article would have been about how he had to sit in a diner, waiting for the car to recharge, because he forgot to plug it in over night. I don't think Elon would have gone ballistic over that article.

Well the NYT's response is basically admitting fault begrudgingly. Their usual response is, "we stand 100% behind the published piece." Getting them to give this response is amazing. Musk can certainly claim victory.

The Public Editor has no obligation to stand behind anything the NYT's publishes. Just the opposite -- they are supposed to stand up to the paper where appropriate. I don't think it's fair to say that they usually stand 100% behind sloppy reporting (but feel free to point me to other instances).

> I'm not sure what Musk is trying to accomplish at this point, his "spin" is transparent and it feels condescending.

Musk has apparently decided after Top Gear that negative press is going to be an issue which he will fight to the death. It certainly feels like he's digging his way out of this particular PR hole.

> he's digging his way out of this particular PR hole

Out of? Or into?

I have to admit I like Musk a lot more when he keeps his mouth shut. With this and his ludicrous Boeing grandstanding, he is sounding less like a mature, visionary CEO with every word he says.

> Out of? Or into?

I'd argue into. He appears to think he's digging his way out.

Yeah, Musk has done some great things, but he seems the sort of person best admired from a distance with some vaseline on the lens... looking too closely reveals something rather less admirable.

[e.g. his "I'm the alpha in this relationship" quote,† at his wedding... I mean, that's downright creepy...]

† http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/mill...

[note: I originally cited http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-int... as a source for the quote, and some replies refer to it, not the Marie Claire op-ed (which is a more direct source).]

My god, that journalist should write for soap operas. Based on my firsthand experience with journalists, I would not be at all surprised to learn that what you quoted was something reported second hand, was said ironically, taken out of context, etc. Suggesting equivalence between the nature of his romantic relationships and the nature of the SpaceX relationship with NASA? Methinks the pendulum has swung a bit far.

> Based on my firsthand experience with journalists, I would not be at all surprised to learn that what you quoted was something reported second hand, was said ironically, taken out of context, etc.

Journalists shouldn't get a free pass simply by virtue of their profession, but neither should they be vilified for it.

I am not particularly familiar with this issue, but a google search turned up the following op-ed, written by Musk's ex-wife [1] :

    Still, there were warning signs. As we danced at our 
    wedding reception, Elon told me, "I am the alpha in this 
    relationship." I shrugged it off, just as I would later
    shrug off signing the postnuptial agreement, but as time 
    went on, I learned that he was serious. He had grown up 
    in the male-dominated culture of South Africa, and the 
    will to compete and dominate that made him so successful 
    in business did not magically shut off when he came 
    home. This, and the vast economic imbalance between us, 
    meant that in the months following our wedding, a 
    certain dynamic began to take hold. Elon's judgment 
    overruled mine, and he was constantly remarking on the 
    ways he found me lacking. 

    "I am your wife," I told him repeatedly, "not your employee."

    "If you were my employee," he said just as often, "I would fire you."

[1] http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/mill...

Thanks, that's a better citation for this quote; I've changed my comment to use it.

I'm criticizing the journalist for writing drivel. I am perfectly willing to believe Elon is a jackass in his personal life. But does any of this have a bearing on the matter at hand?

>But does any of this have a bearing on the matter at hand?

Yes. You made incorrect assumptions about the source of the quote.

Regardless of whether she [Musk's ex wife] may be biased, it's certainly a first hand account of the event in question.

Marie Claire? Really? Even US Magazine would be a step up from that rag.

It's an op-ed, and the author is Musk's wife [first hand account of the quote in question]. The publication is irrelevant in this context.

The worst thing about that quote is the sense that it will make Elon Musk even more of a role model to the thousand or so insecure boys who seem to show up to every internet discussion about gender roles. Mr. Musk may be admirable in the ad astra per aspera sense, but that doesn't mean he is an earthly saint and shouldn't be called on his BS from time to time.

Aping your heroes worst qualities is not good for you or your hero.

Agreed. This blog post is at least as disingenuous as the original article that Musk called "faked."

I am surprised that so many people are "disappointed" in Elon Musk. So he overemphasized some parts and underemphasized other parts of NYT's response (which admitted that there were some inaccuracies in the contested article). But so what? Elon Musk and Tesla have done an amazing job with the Model S, and its quality does not change because of the misrepresentation. If this is enough to get disappointed in Elon Musk, then you should awfully disappointed with a whole lot of people.

No, because that's not how disappointment works. You must understand that Elon Musk is considered one of the most ultimately successful technological innovators on earth by many here: he began with a startup, then proceeded to build a commercial space company, work on solar energy and electric cars. It is unsurprising that this causes many of us technically inclined people to unconsciously worship Musk - if only a little bit.

Then, when it turns out that the person you've just neatly placed upon a pedestal does something you very much disagree with, too, is when people actually become disappointed.

To me, it sounds like saying that Elon Musk was God and we worshiped him, and now he made a mistake. So he is not perfect anymore, and people are upset. And won't be buying Teslas anymore.

Yes. You can make a caricature out of it, but that's how human beings work.

Not to mention the fact that this figure seem childishly incapable of admitting fault. Urgh. I hate it when people can't accept responsibility. It's fine to make a mistake, especially since this didn't do much real lasting harm. So admit, learn from it, don't do it again. Don't twist the facts and (delusionally and irrelevantly) declare victory.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm disappointed because it seems like a really cool car and I really like what he's doing, but the way Musk viciously attacks critics is a serious turn-off. I think the essence of Broder's complaints about the range of the car and cold weather and getting used to a car with different operating constraints are entirely legitimate even if they weren't written with the precision one might expect from the NYT (and, it's worth noting, it wasn't an altogether negative review). It's disappointing that he would attack not just the review, but the reviewer personally.

Your argument is: "Because Elon Musk and the Tesla team have done an amazing job with the Model S, it is impossible/improper/wrong for people to be upset/disappointed in his behaviour." Really?

That's hardly a spin.

Musk: "Victory! The NYT admits Broder got his facts wrong!"

Devil's advocate "Defeat! The NYT still stays Broder was honest!"

No contradiction here, just plausible deniability. Broder made honest mistakes that lead him to get his facts wrong (well). Tesla motors is happy to come out clean, and its cherry picking is just making clear they won't press the issue.

I have a problem with honesty as the redeeming quality problem of the article. Honesty is certainly one of the most important traits of a journalist, so is understanding bias and preventing bias as much as possible. Broder was honest in representing his trip but apparently (sloppy notes, see NYT article) didn't do due diligence when it comes to questioning his own perception and recounting of the events.

>I'm not sure what Musk is trying to accomplish at this point, his "spin" is transparent and it feels condescending.

He's attempting to change the public perception surrounding a very questionable hit piece on his company.

While it feels somewhat polarizing to me, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

IMO, he's making it look worse. I didn't even know about this article and I've still mostly avoided reading about this stuff but my take away so far is that Elon's car is hard for normal people to use, and he's so aggressive at attacking anyone who would say anything bad about it that they're probably right.

Of course you can say "but, you're not even fully informed about the issues" and it's true, but neither will most consumers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com