Why does the WSJ hate Elon and Tesla? [⚠️ ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[skinzy]

Wall Street Journal running an extremely biased and theatrical video on Tesla self driving called "The Hidden Autopilot Data That Reveals Why Teslas Crash" This is just one of many negative articles coming primarily from journal reporter Tim Higgins. What's going on here? Thoughts

Sponsored

 

[Texarado]

Sadly WSJ’s reporting has really gone down in recent years. There have been increasing numbers of “hit” pieces marketed as journalism—not just TSLA but other large companies. There’s still some decent reporting, but definitely more agenda/click-bait reporting than journalism.

 

[mark555055c]

Mainstream media is trash, they are all equal to the national enquirer now in terms of integrity and truth. There is nothing more to it. Tesla is popular, therefore they are a target.

 

[Texarado]

I wasn’t trying to make a MSM argument. WSJ had been an outlet that provided a relative high level of quality in its reporting, it’s just recently really taken a dive.

 

[txtravwill]

I'm afraid this thread will require political points so can't comment. Why even create it if we can't share at least some of the truth.

 

[lowtek]

Unions.

 

[Nice2CTu]

Several opinion (IMO) comments:

1) A balanced view should also attempt, or at least mention, the number of accidents avoided and/or potential lives saved from Autopilot rather than human-only drivers. Even if that is not easily obtained data, at least journalistically explore that topic. I would guess that Tesla has videos of near hits avoided and might be more than willing to share this information in some fashion, even statistically (avoiding exposing sensitive driver IDs, etc.). Get that information as a balanced reporting, criticize it if needed, or point out analytical questions, but this article is completely, 100% one-sided, unbalanced.

2) Just quoting Elon Musk is not balanced, because everyone will assume he is biased, even if he's being factual. Find other experts to counter the implications that the AI capabilities are "endangering" the public. If you're going to say something like that, and claim that the technology will not survive and eventually be removed from cars, is there a poll among EV drives who use it that support removing it, or is it popular and provide confidence.

3) If WSJ is going to single out Tesla because you've scarfed the confidential filings and found a way to uncover 250 or so confidential comments, Would it be fair to also examine GM, Ford, Stellantis, Mercedes, Audii, VW and others who include LIDAR? Lidar may be superior in detecting objects, but it's very expensive, and it also isn't trainable in the way full video is. Future video trainability with billions of driver examples is (IMO) likely to be much superior and safer than just radar/lidar.

4) One of the accidents shown didn't disclose that the driver was intoxicated, nor did it ever mention what any of the drivers might have been responsible in some way for not paying attention. This comment is not to be judgmental, or cast any specific aspersions, but again just to be one-sided and blame one company is very unbalanced.

5) When we all used to use horses, there was some intelligence in the horse that might avoid an accident (horse could side-step a snake, or a pothole, or refuse to keep going if it sensed danger). Humans might have been very afraid that a car could continue to coast while a driver looked behind them, or got distracted. I can imagine an article at the time predicting that engine-powered cars (steam, gas, electric) would never survive because they caused accidents and were unsafe. Making some prediction that this technology will not continue to be used in the future, with no rationale other than it is "endangering the public" is unbalanced.

I like the WSJ, read it every day, have found it the most reliable (IMO) bits of journalism out there, but it's not perfect. This article relies on one critic, avoids presenting an intelligent input from industry experts to balance the view, IMO.

 

[SteelMyHeart]

I have yet to see really any news outlet, consumer reports included, differentiate between tacc, autopilot, enhanced autopilot and FSD. In addition they all paint basic autopilot as if tesla says you can ride in the backseat while it is on. This is why you see super cruise and blue cruise rated as better than autopilot when it isn't apples to apples comparison.

Musk and tesla don't help themselves with how they talk about the tech and a small minority of owners abuse the tech and then crash and that is what gets reported. The assumption is that any driver assistance tech should be held to a zero crash standard. That will only be true once true level 5 autonomy is achieved and we obviously arent there yet. In the meantime, nobody reports the crash data below:

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

 

[lowtek]

I like the WSJ, read it every day, have found it the most reliable (IMO) bits of journalism out there, but it's not perfect. This article relies on one critic, avoids presenting an intelligent input from industry experts to balance the view, IMO.

The bar is quite low.

 

[Late_Refustration]

For he same reason people create social media content about their cybertrucks - clicks and subscribers

 

[Deleted member 17810]

In case anyone wants to watch the video behind the paywall:

https://www.barrons.com/video/serie...-0251-4637-A035-A5131D8883B8?mod=news_archive


They show some raw video footage of fatal crashes where the autopilot neglects to detect obstacles.

 

[lowtek]

In case anyone wants to watch the video behind the paywall:

https://www.barrons.com/video/serie...-0251-4637-A035-A5131D8883B8?mod=news_archive


They show some raw video footage of fatal crashes where the autopilot neglects to detect obstacles.

It doesn't matter, didn't bother to watch, it's the responsibility of the driver to monitor and take over as necessary, always has been.

I fly airplanes, they have an autopilot, not taking a nap.

 

[skinzy]

Several opinion (IMO) comments:

1) A balanced view should also attempt, or at least mention, the number of accidents avoided and/or potential lives saved from Autopilot rather than human-only drivers. Even if that is not easily obtained data, at least journalistically explore that topic. I would guess that Tesla has videos of near hits avoided and might be more than willing to share this information in some fashion, even statistically (avoiding exposing sensitive driver IDs, etc.). Get that information as a balanced reporting, criticize it if needed, or point out analytical questions, but this article is completely, 100% one-sided, unbalanced.

2) Just quoting Elon Musk is not balanced, because everyone will assume he is biased, even if he's being factual. Find other experts to counter the implications that the AI capabilities are "endangering" the public. If you're going to say something like that, and claim that the technology will not survive and eventually be removed from cars, is there a poll among EV drives who use it that support removing it, or is it popular and provide confidence.

3) If WSJ is going to single out Tesla because you've scarfed the confidential filings and found a way to uncover 250 or so confidential comments, Would it be fair to also examine GM, Ford, Stellantis, Mercedes, Audii, VW and others who include LIDAR? Lidar may be superior in detecting objects, but it's very expensive, and it also isn't trainable in the way full video is. Future video trainability with billions of driver examples is (IMO) likely to be much superior and safer than just radar/lidar.

4) One of the accidents shown didn't disclose that the driver was intoxicated, nor did it ever mention what any of the drivers might have been responsible in some way for not paying attention. This comment is not to be judgmental, or cast any specific aspersions, but again just to be one-sided and blame one company is very unbalanced.

5) When we all used to use horses, there was some intelligence in the horse that might avoid an accident (horse could side-step a snake, or a pothole, or refuse to keep going if it sensed danger). Humans might have been very afraid that a car could continue to coast while a driver looked behind them, or got distracted. I can imagine an article at the time predicting that engine-powered cars (steam, gas, electric) would never survive because they caused accidents and were unsafe. Making some prediction that this technology will not continue to be used in the future, with no rationale other than it is "endangering the public" is unbalanced.

I like the WSJ, read it every day, have found it the most reliable (IMO) bits of journalism out there, but it's not perfect. This article relies on one critic, avoids presenting an intelligent input from industry experts to balance the view, IMO.

Very Well said!

 

[Woodrick]

The reason is simple, clicks make money. By posting the link to their story, you made money and you made sure that the article becomes better read, which we all know means the people like it because they read it.

Sponsored