When future generations write the history of this era, perhaps one footnote will be about the peculiar disconnect between the Journalist class and the ground reality of what is happening, and what is important. There is an inexplicable hostility among certain elite journalists to a) the truth about how dire our planetary situation is, and b) the good news about actual solutions that are at hand.
Recently, such a journalist wrote a scurrilous and misleading report about the all-electric Tesla Model S sedan. Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded by handing John Broder his ass, complete with graphs.
You may have heard recently about an article written by John Broder from The New York Times that makes numerous claims about the performance of the Model S. We are upset by this article because it does not factually represent Tesla technology, which is designed and tested to operate well in both hot and cold climates. Indeed, our highest per capita sales are in Norway, where customers drive our cars during Arctic winters in permanent midnight, and in Switzerland, high among the snowy Alps. About half of all Tesla Roadster and Model S customers drive in temperatures well below freezing in winter. While no car is perfect, after extremely thorough testing, the Model S was declared to be the best new car in the world by the most discerning authorities in the automotive industry.
To date, hundreds of journalists have test driven the Model S in every scenario you can imagine. The car has been driven through Death Valley (the hottest place on Earth) in the middle of summer and on a track of pure ice in a Minnesota winter. It has traveled over 600 miles in a day from the snowcapped peaks of Tahoe to Los Angeles, which made the very first use of the Supercharger network, and moreover by no lesser person than another reporter from The New York Times. Yet, somehow John Broder “discovered” a problem and was unavoidably left stranded on the road. Or was he?
After a negative experience several years ago with Top Gear, a popular automotive show, where they pretended that our car ran out of energy and had to be pushed back to the garage, we always carefully data log media drives. While the vast majority of journalists are honest, some believe the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story. In the case ofTop Gear, they had literally written the script before they even received the car (we happened to find a copy of the script on a table while the car was being “tested”). Our car never even had a chance.
The logs show again that our Model S never had a chance with John Broder. In the case with Top Gear, their legal defense was that they never actually said it broke down, they just implied that it could and then filmed themselves pushing what viewers did not realize was a perfectly functional car. In Mr. Broder’s case, he simply did not accurately capture what happened and worked very hard to force our car to stop running.
Here is a summary of the key facts:
- As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck.
- The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.
- In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles,” contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.
- On that leg, he drove right past a public charge station while the car repeatedly warned him that it was very low on range.
- Cruise control was never set to 54 mph as claimed in the article, nor did he limp along at 45 mph. Broder in fact drove at speeds from 65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip and at an average cabin temperature setting of 72 F.
- At the point in time that he claims to have turned the temperature down, he in fact turned the temperature up to 74 F.
- The charge time on his second stop was 47 mins, going from -5 miles (reserve power) to 209 miles of Ideal or 185 miles of EPA Rated Range, not 58 mins as stated in the graphic attached to his article. Had Broder not deliberately turned off the Supercharger at 47 mins and actually spent 58 mins Supercharging, it would have been virtually impossible to run out of energy for the remainder of his stated journey.
- 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%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?
- The above helps explain a unique peculiarity at the end of the second leg of Broder’s trip. When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said “0 miles remaining.” Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in. On the later legs, it is clear Broder was determined not to be foiled again.
When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology. There was no need to write a story about existing Superchargers on the East Coast, as that had already been done by Consumer Reports with no problems! We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity. As a result, we did not think to read his past articles and were unaware of his outright disdain for electric cars. We were played for a fool and as a result, let down the cause of electric vehicles. For that, I am deeply sorry.
When I first heard about what could at best be described as irregularities in Broder’s behavior during the test drive, I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.
In his own words in an article published last year, this is how Broder felt about electric cars before even seeing the Model S:
“Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.”
When the facts didn’t suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts. Our request of The New York Times is simple and fair: please investigate this article and determine the truth. You are a news organization where that principle is of paramount importance and what is at stake for sustainable transport is simply too important to the world to ignore.
Vehicle Logs for Media Drive by John Broder on January 23 and 24
Google Map with Tesla comments showing actual performance of Model S and Broder’s intentions:
Subsequently a CNN crew drove the route with no problem. Their finding?
..the Model S provides a pretty amazing mix of smooth and silent performance along with brain-squishing acceleration. So even if you’re not driving from Washington to Boston, it’s an impressive car, all on its own.
As for the Supercharger network? Turns out that works, too.
I guess the journalist didn’t do his job by researching the capabilities of the on-board computer, but the on-board computer did do its job by telling the truth in the form of hard data. Oops.
CNN didn’t have a problem making the same trip and did it in one day, not two.
It was somewhat warmer than when that lying jackass Broder drove but the difference wouldn’t account for the drastic disparity in range that he claimed in his NYT hatchet piece.
Here’s the CNN link:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/
The NY Times journalist responds: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt/
If this is true, Broder deserves to be fired by the NYT. Just like those ***holes from Top Gear.
I followed this story (What journalists are saying about John Broder):
http://muckrack.com/topic/John%20Broder
To this story (The issue people are missing about the Tesla/New York Times controversy):
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/02/14/tesla-new-york-times-controversy.html
Which is really just an attempt to find a middle ground between Broder and Musk and to defend the myth of objective journalism. In essence, Xavier is saying that Broder was just incompetent, but that’s a good thing, because the Model S will potentially have a lot of incompetent drivers in real-world situations.
My wife’s first car (a graduation present of a Ford Mustang) suddenly gave out one day on the highway. She didn’t know at the time that one had to change the oil. It never really crossed my mind at the time to blame the car, or Ford, or combustion engine technology at the time. But maybe I have a case for a lawsuit? It wasn’t my wife’s fault, after all.
That’s the real question here – do electric cars function as advertised? Broder’s article is a complete failure in this regard, whether by incompetence or malicious intent. He should release a mea culpa response. Instead he appears to be doubling down.
Would anyone start out on a 61 mile drive with the gas gauge just above empty? Why would someone start out on a 61 mile drive in an EV with the range remaining gauge showing 32 miles? Mr. Broder would have run out of gas if he had tried this in an S class Mercedes, so I guess he is just an incompetent driver…
The data and the other reporter doing the Dc to Boston drive, both show Mr. Broder was not being honest.
The New York Times needs to protect their reputation – it is the most valuable asset they have. Mr. Broder is trying to spin things (to save his job?) – but he cannot make the excuse that the BBC/Top Gear did. He is a journalist (supposedly) and not an entertainer.
I watched Transport Evolved podcast #138 and Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield ( http://www.youtube.com/user/aminorjourney ) and she mentions that the BBC “reports” on this in a one-sided self-serving way.
I think that Elon Musk knew what he was doing.
Neil
Re: ” so I guess he is just an incompetent driver…”
I think you are being far too kind. It would appear that John Broder is a fraud.
You can get the same feeling of fraudulent distortion from the disappointing Rebecca Greenfield item on the Atlantic Wire.
Why anyone believes that the mainstream media is not utterly corrupt is beyond me. I’ve been reading the mainstream and alternative media since the early 1960s and the MSM has only gotten more propagndistic and fraudulent over time.
For those who are unfamiliar with it, this 1977 Rolling Stone’s article by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame is well worth a read: “The CIA and the Media”.
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
If anyone reads and comprehends the import of this article, you will never trust the mainstream media again.
The best liars often mix in the truth. What one will find is that the media is basically agenda-driven. This could be many things – reinforce a corporate narrative, support a particular political faction, treat certain groups with kid gloves and other groups with iron mallets, or simply to sell their own publications (I suspect, but of course can’t prove, the latter in this case – a story about the batteries dying is a lot juicier than a story about how they could drive an electric car 600 miles). The ‘truth’ gets selectively added or withdrawn, stretched or mitigated, as needed to support the desired agenda(s). What stories are emphasized, how they are reported, and when they are reported – these are all factors that can be manipulated.
These things are unavoidable in a real sense on either an individual or a group level. We all have biases, internal narratives, and desires to be supported. Objectivity in the media is a pipe dream. But the myth of objectivity is vital to maintain some level of respect amongst the ‘serious’ media sources. If a media source wants to be treated with that respect, they have to have some combination of sticking to the facts and/or be exceptionally good at manipulation. Very few media sources try to just stick to the facts these days. They’re all too frightened about their own profitability now – and the sensational sells.
This story basically boils down to a guy who didn’t once fully charge the batteries on an EV and who also failed to charge the batteries overnight. Then he writes a story about how the batteries died. Bottom line. One might as well complain about a car running out of gas or a horse dropping dead because it didn’t get enough water.
Re: “Would anyone start out on a 61 mile drive with the gas gauge just above empty? Why would someone start out on a 61 mile drive in an EV with the range remaining gauge showing 32 miles? ”
Is John Broder blonde by chance? Oops, sorry. Forgive me for my political incorrect question. 🙂
I took a tour of the factory yesterday in Fremont. This car is the real deal. It is a technological tour de force. Mostly made of aluminum, using advanced manufacturing techniques. This NYT hit piece will probably fade into obscurity long before the car has become a legend. It already has garnered rave reviews from skeptics. The reporter does not deserve to be mentioned. This reveals to us that people who lie and slander new technologies like this, that give us a future, are just sad fools. Reminds me of the Faux News slander of the Volt.
If the NYT doesn’t fire him, they will have lost all credibility. There is no way you could call this an honest mistake. This is not an honest difference of opinion, this is an article full of deliberate factual errors (aka lying) which belongs on World Net Daily, not the NYT.
We should consider that Musk might not have all the details quite right, either… (Not defending anybody, just advising caution in piling on.)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/
Actually, here’s a better round-up of all the back-and-forth in progress, at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker.
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/02/mytimes-public-editor-wading-broder-v-mu
Coming at such a critical phase of the Model S’s acceptance, and Tesla’s business, its hard not to be bitter about such behavior. It matches the slander directed at climate scientists, renewable energy, and anything that threatens the power choke-hold Big fossil energy has over America.
For a country that celebrates technology, from moon rockets to personal computers, there’s a curious lack of interest in this anti-science/anti-technology effort. People seem to accept it as just another way of doing business. More than accept it: welcome it. ‘A prophet is not respected in his own country’, when applied to technology, just cedes that technology to another country, and you can see that happening right now to America.
Why should anyone be surprised that a fraudulent organization (the NY Times) that lied the nation into an illegal war in Iraq would be ethical about the Tesla car when someone might well have placed that John Broder piece as paid disinformation?
The good news? Eventually the New York Times fired Judith Miller for blatant partisan lies on behalf of her thieving neo-con cronies. Maybe with enough of a campaign against him, Broder can be dismissed as he should be.
*** Should read in part: “would be UNethical about the Tesla”.
Sorry about the typo.