Can you elaborate on what you thought was "spin" or how the public editor was unfair?
---------------
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.
That is why I said it was misleading, and parenthesized my judgement of it (dishonest).
"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.
And political speeches are like yodeling: the point is to sound really nice, not to convey actual meaning.
Pot calling the kettle black there.
> 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.