Not true. Tesla sued BBC's Top Gear for libel after a review [1]. That didn't stop Tesla from getting this NY Times piece [2] and other award-winning press, such as Motor Trend Car of the Year 2013.
I dunno - do you really think auto reviewers are all a same-think cabal who hold grudges on each other's behalf? I've met a bunch, and I don't think that's correct. Most are out to ... drumroll ... write reviews. If Tesla puts out a good product, they'll get good reviews.
Not to mention that most writers have a pretty good idea who else on their beat is writing tripe. And if someone has a habit of doing this sort of thing, they're not going to care one whit when that person is exposed.
I thought many auto reviewers were like entertainment reporters (my perception could be out of date)-- they usually go on review junkets paid for by the auto makers and often don't post reviews that are too negative for fear of not being invited again.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Consumer Reports bought a Tesla for review, and when they announced it, they mentioned all the hoops they jumped through to prevent Tesla from knowing that they bought one.
>they mentioned all the hoops they jumped through to prevent Tesla from knowing that they bought one.
Given Musk's tweet about how they always enable data logging for journalists, i'm wondering why it was so important for CR not to let tesla know they bought one.
Yes, this is more about Consumer Reports than about Tesla. CR cares a lot that they aren't getting any kind of special car. They want the exact same car their customers would get.
Honestly, I'm surprised anyone is even willing to do a review, when they have shown a willingness to sue the press for libel. Why bother taking the risk? Just let them have no press.
Any company or individual should be willing to sue the press for libel. It should also not be of any concern to a media outlet because by rule you should not be committing libel.
It would be an awesomely poor publication that is only willing to report on people and organizations that won't sue the publication when it intentionally misrepresents the facts.
In a perfect world. But in the real world, your concern has little to do with whether or not you actually committed libel. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean the company that you just trashed won't lawyer up and claim otherwise. If US courts were "loser pays", this would be somewhat less of a concern.
Which makes the fact that Tesla lost the lawsuit in the UK even more remarkable. The burden of proof rests on the defense in the UK, not the plaintiffs.
And if Elon fails to actually prove this reporter lied/fabricated the review and just waffles, the NYT is going to skewer Tesla in their response and this story will get much more legs than if they had just ignored the review.
Your hypothesis is playing out already. I just saw a piece on CNBC a few minutes ago talking about the negative NYT Tesla review where they mostly talked about how glowing the reviews have been for the Tesla S and how as a company they are really doing well. My overall impression is that people were taking the NYT review with a grain of salt even before Musk called BS. But NYT also called BS on him, so let's see whose numbers add up.
Machines lie constantly. Get some filter oil on your mass airflow sensor, and watch your ECUs nose grow. Hell, we almost nuked the russians, and them us, due to a lying machine :)
True that. However, that would be a bit of a stretch. A more likely outcome is great coverage in short course for Tesla and another short tone-it a-couple-of-notches-down by NYTimes on the third page.
