I thought the most convincing part of Elon's post was his 3rd bullet point, which relies on no data outside of the article, and which this Atlantic Wire journalist ignores entirely:
"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."
The car said it would go 32. It went 51. Broder claimed this "fell short". Clearly it didn't.
"Driving a 2013 Model S with an 85-kilowatt-hour battery pack, which has an EPA range rating of 265 miles...the car barely reached the next Supercharger, 206 miles away in Milford, Conn. The next day, in 10 degree weather, the car fell short of its projected range..."
So when you read the statement in context, and you actually look at the graphic, you realize that the "fell short of its projected range" is a claim made in the summary of the graphic, in which it is clear that, because of space reasons, the journey is described as day by day segments.
So the NYT does not assert that the Model S's final leg was just the 32 miles left on the car. That "fell short of its projected range" is referring to the 265 EPA that the car normally would've had had it not been so cold out.
Should the NYT have been more verbose? Well, maybe. But I guess they also expect readers to actually look at the infographic, the purpose of which is to show greater detail.
It's quite misleading for Elon Musk to harp on a summary-statement in a different context.
That's not how I read it. The summary was pretty specific... "The next day" isn't a summary of the trip, it's a summary of that day. That day, the car projected 32 miles. It delivered 51. It didn't "fall short" that day.
Notice how his red highlighted area encompasses the summary (which is in a different font-size) and the bullet-point-like annotations...yes, I guess if you read the infographic in that left-to-right fashion, you would make that connection...but if you read it in numerical order (as indicated by the numbered bullet points), you would not associate the two statements.
I'm reading that the same way he did. When I read it, it is very clear that "that day" refers to Jan 24th. The day in which it told him it would go 32 miles and went 51.
Actually it did when the car reported 90 the night before and a call to Tesla assured him that a quick charge would "re-calibrate" the system because of a software bug.
If his only defense is bad advice from a marketing person, then this reporter has not adequately protected himself in this situation. This was a product review, and if he had used the product in the same way that any other consumer would use it then his only misfortune would have been some extra charging time. It's possible that if he had spent the extra time charging and then reported that, then Tesla and its obstreperous leader would have responded, "don't pay attention to the gauge on the screen, just listen to our marketing dude!" But that wouldn't have reflected as poorly on Broder as the current situation does.
This is true even if you assume the best intentions from this reporter: he should know that Tesla is his adversary in his search for the truth and they will not suffer criticism passively. Many on HN and in the general public do not assume the best intentions of any reporter, and in light of that reporters should conduct themselves even more rigorously.
One interesting tidbit is that those quotes are from the graphic that ran with the story, and the graphic refers to Broder in the third person as a "Washington-based reporter". I wonder if he was responsible for the graphic.
"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."
The car said it would go 32. It went 51. Broder claimed this "fell short". Clearly it didn't.