I see you have it all wrong. I'm not in disagreement with that. (And there goes the basis for your comment.) Either you are willfully misreading my comment, or you're trying a subtle sleight of hand. The facts mostly fit Broder's account. I'm calling attention to the fact that all of the inaccuracies and bad decisions were pointedly in one direction. A reporter should have some facility in curbing his own bias. Apparently, Broder has insufficient competence in figures and self awareness for this.
This is precisely what Feynmann is talking about in the quote.
They are not, though. From Broder's account (you should read the original article), most of the bad decisions and inaccuracies can be attributed to advice that Tesla gave Broder. That is the crux of the problem: Broder makes a claim based on Tesla engineer advice, and Musk denies and attributes that to malice.
I am arguing against your implicit assertion that NYT is at fault at each point of divergence between NYT's and Tesla's account. It's still up in the air, and as I said: "only thing that remains is the question of the call logs. "
That said, Broder has an additional problem which is of being fair to the reader versus Tesla. He shouldn't grade Tesla on a curve. Bear in mind, the point isn't to make sure Tesla is treated fairly, but to make sure readers don't find themselves waiting for a flatbed truck in a blizzard.
Imagine how this would have gone with Top Gear doing it, all on video (quite likely including recording the conversations with tech support).
Going back to the public editor's piece: when was the last time you read a manual for anything? I have sometimes resorted to a manual as a last resort, but not when I have instant access to human tech support.
Yeah, if you let him get away with being scientifically illiterate.
> you should read the original article
EDIT: You litter your comments with these off-hand remarks that imply things about other's positions which aren't true.
> I am arguing against your implicit assertion that NYT is at fault at each point of divergence between NYT's and Tesla's account.
What, is putting words in other's mouths the modus operandi now? I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Broder isn't sufficiently competent at curbing his own bias, knowing how to do empirical reporting, and making sensible technical decisions in the field to do a car review. He tried to get it right? Making inadequate efforts at getting at the truth isn't an acceptable level of performance from a national news media outlet. It's basically, "Hey, we tried. Be satisfied with our truthiness."
Your statement stems from an attack by Musk. What makes you think that a journalist would be more biased than the CEO of a car companies with billions of dollars at stake?
Your stalwart defense of Musk belies your inability to think objectively. My stance is as it was when I first saw the situation: the only way to resolve this is to reveal the phone logs. It's a he-said-she-said (that's something else I've pointed out multiple times) and somehow HN deems Musk (not a party to the conversation) more credible than the journalist asked to test drive without asking for the key information that would resolve this matter
No, my statement stems from reading his account, then comparing it to Musk's data.
> What makes you think that a journalist would be more biased than the CEO of a car companies with billions of dollars at stake?
Again, this sort of sleight of hand. I'm not defending Musk's bias here, Musk's bias doesn't in any way exonerate the other's, and nice try, if that was intentional. I'm purely attacking Broder's incompetence.
> Your stalwart defense of Musk belies your inability to think objectively.
So it's "objective" to not recognize Broder's bias in his inaccuracies, or at least to excuse it because, hey Musk was probably biased too!
...Okay! You're entitled to your position, man!
> It's a he-said-she-said
Yes, the rest of us are just avoiding the "he-said-she-said" quagmire. It is a quagmire, and the likely ROI is low. Really, the outcome of one car review isn't so important, but the issue brings up plenty of stuff which is. I'll tell you what: When Musk is the head of a national media outlet "of record," and he publishes the same sort of stuff, I'll hold his feet to the fire for shoddy journalism for his hasty comments and interpretation of data -- which he is guilty of. It's not a par-performance, objectively a bit of a PR cock-up, but still understandable from a CEO. Of course he's biased in favor of his product. The journalist is only human, but he's not only supposed to try to be objective as a part of his job, he's supposed to show some competence at it.
The disturbing part of this whole issue for me is the degree to which carelessness about empirical fact is seen as "okay." Elon Musk has a substantial public record which shows a notable degree of diligence towards getting facts right. Broder's article -- best I could say about it is: enh.