Is it? Musk again seems petty and vindictive, and he is quite transparently very carefully selecting pieces that essentially pitches to the converted.
The editor gave a very coached response that was hardly the win that Musk seems to think it was.
How does this relate to Sullivans statement? It's the same situation: you can not openly condemn the work of a colleague or the NYT as a whole. So you write everything in the most conflict-averse way as possible. That is why its such a "coached" response and 1/2 of it is even the quote from a Tesla supporter.
But frankly, everything you need to know about Broder is in the headline:
Problems With Precision and Judgment
The US, in my experience, is no different, whether it be job references or letters of rec. Good writers will be able to use nuance to make their meaning clear, and good readers must be able to interpret the nuances appropriately.
However the primary complaint of the editor is effectively that the author used poor judgement in not getting every single detail absolutely right with pinpoint accuracy, particularly in dealing with anything to do with Tesla. They said that they turned the temperature down at a certain point, for instance, giving Musk the ammunition to cry outrage when his own data showed that not much further in the journey the temperature went to the minimum for over 50 miles of the journey (which, at the slow speeds recorded, would have been over an hour). It's things like that which have been the topic of most outage about the NYT article, despite not changing the actual substance of the article whatsoever.
1) Malicious/Lies to obtain desired result
2) Incompetent
Neither bodes well for him.
If anything happened, the journalist was vindicated.
No matter who's right or wrong here, the next person to review a Tesla will think twice before going about the usual raised-pinky bullshit write-up.
I love this whole episode, irrespective of who's right or wrong for so many reasons.
A CEO pin pointing bullshit (alleged) to such a degree and tech/auto journalism getting a nice dose of facts.
People review Teslas because there's a market for the reviews. That market has only increased.
Rather than fewer reviews, it's virtually certain there will be more than there would have been otherwise.
Reviewers will, however, be far more careful with the details they report, and that's good for everyone.
If by "coached" you mean "squirmy", yes. I mean, she refused to take a stance on the issue and instead tried to play the role of an impartial observer, and failed completely.
I wouldn't. He's proven to at best be very sloppy with the details.