The WSJ Spews FUD in Attack Article

[CT_AZ_4x4]

Crazy amounts of FUD in this article and the comments from readers.

The “reporting” is more akin to propaganda than news. The comments from readers are so-far from reality after absorbing and internalizing the propaganda that you’d think they’d had their information sources groomed for them like citizens of North Korea. Totally insane!

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/...01946?st=3XFWaN&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Sponsored

 

[Art138]

I see it as opportunistic journalism playing on the frustration of some owners. There are some valid points made however. Those who had their trucks wrapped and had to change the cant rails ect cost them extra change. Most new model vehicles will have issues but the Cybertruck is a gossip magnet and will continue to be so.

 

[dalton108]

Crazy amounts of FUD in this article and the comments from readers.

The “reporting” is more akin to propaganda than news. The comments from readers are so-far from reality after absorbing and internalizing the propaganda that you’d think they’d had their information sources groomed for them like citizens of North Korea. Totally insane!

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/...01946?st=3XFWaN&reflink=article_copyURL_share

1. Don’t read the comment section. Ever. “Hic sunt dracones.”

2. I didn’t detect anything in the article that was false. Obviously its highly slanted, but I don’t know that I saw anything that I would consider to be FUD.

A fair amount of misdirection, (font size issues comes to mind— not really a “Cybertruck issue”) but, not a whole lot of actual untruth.

That infographic is pretty devastating, but unfortunately all of that happened.

 

[REM]

The WSJ is blatantly propaganda, and has been for quite a long time. Always follow the money.

 

[CT_AZ_4x4]

1. Don’t read the comment section. Ever. “Hic sunt dracones.”

2. I didn’t detect anything in the article that was false. Obviously it slanted, but I don’t know that I saw anything that I would consider to be FUD.

A fair amount of misdirection, (font size issues comes to mind— not really a “Cybertruck issue”) but, not a whole lot of actual untruth.

That infographic is pretty devastating, but unfortunately all of that happened.

But the SCALE of the reported issues makes it sound like EVERY SINGLE TRUCK has EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. My opinion on some of the issues is that they are conflated to the extreme. Like the rivet in the go-pedal? I believe that someone would need to ACTIVELY work in a concerted manner for that to ever be a real-life problem. I could take any manufacturer’s floor mat and allege an identical issue, but hopefully the media would not blame the manufacturer if I were to post on social media.

And panels falling off? How many have fallen off your truck? I’ve taken my truck to some rugged places and none of them are falling off.

Conflating one or two trucks that were production nightmares to an entire fleet is misleading. There is little to no substantive truth there - only procedural truth.

 

[Musicurry]

I see it as opportunistic journalism playing on the frustration of some owners. There are some valid points made however. Those who had their trucks wrapped and had to change the cant rails ect cost them extra change. Most new model vehicles will have issues but the Cybertruck is a gossip magnet and will continue to be so.

Don’t give the WSJ any credit. They rake-muck for money, as does all the legacy news media companies. Compare to junk food: nothing healthy, all garbage cancer-feeding filler… and I’m not exaggerating.

 

[heems]

I didn’t click the link. But I did get in my truck and it put a massive smile on my face. It has been doing that every day for 16 months. ??

 

[jeffrey2z]

Same!

 

[VAF84]

I’m a long time WSJ subscriber, and felt they were the most objective and stats driven. However, I’ve noted in the last year or two a move to more sensational and “click bait” type articles that to me water down the brand. Not even taking into account the multiple hit pieces on Musk.

Anyway, I finally cancelled my subscription, and haven’t decided if I’ll back out on cancellation date. I can’t figure out who to replace it yet, it seems all the majors have gone down hill. Even Financial Times seems slanted, and then they got busted on some bs reporting earlier this year, can’t remember who it was on at the moment. Just tired of it all. Give me emotionless, data driven info, and leave out the opinion and bias. How hard is that?

 

[WormtownKris]

Not going to click. Is this possibly "Bob's" objective perspective piece that was recently soliciting comments here?

 

[SlegMD]

Article is fairly accurate, especially considering the comments section, lmao! The article does mention a couple instances where previous customers that had quality control issues would still purchase Tesla/CT, which I would say is fair praises. A more fair approach would have been to compare recalls and customer satisfaction across the industry.

 

[dalton108]

But the SCALE of the reported issues makes it sound like EVERY SINGLE TRUCK has EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. My opinion on some of the issues is that they are conflated to the extreme. Like the rivet in the go-pedal? I believe that someone would need to ACTIVELY work in a concerted manner for that to ever be a real-life problem. I could take any manufacturer’s floor mat and allege an identical issue, but hopefully the media would not blame the manufacturer if I were to post on social media.

And panels falling off? How many have fallen off your truck? I’ve taken my truck to some rugged places and none of them are falling off.

Conflating one or two trucks that were production nightmares to an entire fleet is misleading. There is little to no substantive truth there - only procedural truth.

100% agree. Well said.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

I am the David quoted in the article. I think the article overall is accurate, but the reporter was clearly sent by her editor with a task - so after an hour of conversation the quotes they used were picked for that message. My mostly positive comments about my CT and long Tesla ownership experience were not used, so context is lost. I knew this would be the case, did throw in phrases that I knew would be used, like the CT being a bigger fail than the MX falcon wing doors, but it is consistent with truth. This is simply how reporting works - I was quoted in the WSJ regularly when I was an analyst covering public companies, and learned how to speak with reporters in a way that got them what they came for, no more, no less. But it was still an interesting crapshoot when opening the article to see which quotes were used and which weren’t.

The article’s basic message that the CT is a design and marketing failure of epic proportions is completely true. Some of you will reply that the jury remains out, or that notwithstanding the model’s limited public acceptance compared to stated market objectives, these are great vehicles, give it more time. Okay, but seriously, the numbers are the numbers and we are now 18 months into what was supposed to be a high-demand, smash hit game-changing truck. It simply isn’t any of that - and it is now an albatross that Tesla must come up with a strategy to either correct or move on. The market has voted and the answer on the CT was “no.”

I love my CT and am glad to own it - it makes life better, provides grins like no other vehicle. That is true of every Tesla I’ve owned. But they have also required more service and have experienced more “recalls” than any non-Tesla vehicle I’ve owned. The beta-tester stuff comes with the Tesla ownership territory. Of course that satisfaction and positive view was shared with the reporter, but this wasn’t their angle for today’s piece. Meanwhile Dan Neill has written two WSJ articles in the past six months explaining why people should look past Elon’s foibles and buy a Tesla anyway - including one about a new used M3 he bought for his daughter a few weeks ago.

 

[Trimotor]

WSJ AKA brain dead clickbait.

 

[CT_AZ_4x4]

I am the David quoted in the article…..

I appreciate your perspective, Dave. All valid points.

I agree that procedurally and technically the report is accurate. But when looking at the sum and substance, the report (again in my opinion) is lacking and is even misleading. I think that some of the issues reported as being the fault of Tesla were from persons wanting to get clicks who may have self-inflicted, played up, or even directly caused the issue in question for clicks or other reasons.

Improvements like steer-by-wire, 48 volt architecture, FSD, rear-wheel assisted turning, speed-based turning radius, and design (from a physics and aerodynamic standpoint), and others, are not discussed or are muted when discussed in the article.

There is a lot more being evaluated in the article than just the truck, as if Elon IS the Cybertruck. Clearly he is not, and mistakes have been made in quality control and also in marketing.

But on a substantive level I think the article is a hit piece. This type of entertainment is best left out of the WSJ. It diminishes them.

Sponsored