The interpretation of The Times having “reversed” its position was proliferated by a blog post bylined by Tesla CEO Elon Musk essentially stating as much – and its interpretation was incorrect, said The Times’ Eileen Murphy, VP corporate communications, yesterday.

Broder’s Feb. 8 story that started the Tesla/Times row was portrayed as a test of two Supercharger fast charging stations in a drive from Washington to Connecticut. It made headlines after he told a harrowing tale of emergency energy saving procedures required, freezing as he drove in the cold trying to preserve power, and ultimately running out of power just the same. It featured a photo of the $101,000 electric car being towed.

Of this story, Musk tweeted not long after that it was “a fake” and has since provided data log evidence intended to prove his case, but his presentation has not induced The Times to retract its backing of its reporter, said Murphy.

A statement from one voice at The Times is what triggered Musk’s exuberant blog post along the way of a drama that is still unfolding. After speaking with Musk and others, in a blog post The Times calls the “Public Editor’s Journal,” Margaret Sullivan, the public editor, wrote of misgivings she had for Broder’s report.

In response, on Feb. 19, Musk’s blog post (linked above) to his thousands of fans began as follows:

Yesterday, The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our Model S and no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened. After investigating the facts surrounding the test drive, the Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment,” “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that are unassailable.

We would like to thank Margaret Sullivan and The New York Times for looking into this matter and thoughtfully considering the public evidence, as well as additional evidence provided on background …

As Norman Mayersohn, deputy editor for The Times’ Automobiles section pointed out in an e-mail yesterday, our cuing off of Musk’s statement that The Times had “backed down” from its opinion was an overstating of the case.

The Times official statement issued prior to Sullivan’s post remains therefore its actual take on the Broder report:

The Times’s Feb. 10 article recounting a reporter’s test drive in a Tesla Model S was completely factual, describing the trip in detail exactly as it occurred. Any suggestion that the account was “fake” is, of course, flatly untrue. Our reporter followed the instructions he was given in multiple conversations with Tesla personnel. He described the entire drive in the story; there was no unreported detour. And he was never told to plug the car in overnight in cold weather, despite repeated contact with Tesla.

Mayersohn explained despite Sullivan’s vote of no confidence, others at the paper’s leadership levels have stated nothing of the sort.

Yesterday in our follow up with Murphy, we asked her to again verify whether the paper is maintaining its stance, or whether it has it “reversed” its position as Musk wrote.

“Our position on this matter has not changed and our previous statement stands,” wrote Murphy on behalf of The Times yesterday. “Margaret Sullivan, The Times’s public editor, does not speak for The Times. As she noted, she is an independent voice in our newsroom and her opinions are her own. It’s worth noting that Mr. Musk’s blog post also selectively pulls quotes from her column that don’t necessarily reflect the totality of her conclusions but you can be the judge of that. I hope this clarifies.”

As noted above, Sullivan did briefly offer a clarification in a more recent Public Editor’s Journal post.

“One addendum, for the sake of clarity: As public editor, I speak only for myself. My opinions about what happened during and after the Tesla Model S road test, expressed in my Monday blog post, are not those of The Times,” wrote Sullivan Feb. 21.

In related news, Bloomberg reported Feb. 25 that Elon Musk said that The Times report has cost Tesla as much as $100 million in market capitalization, and at least several hundred Model S orders were canceled as a result of the report he told Bloomberg Broder “fudged.”

Whether this is true or provable is part of the latest speculative pieces, such as by Forbes, and doubtless, myriad opinions abound on what continues to simmer in a high-profile disagreement replete with insinuation by both parties, and various people taking the side of the Times or Tesla.

Queries and request for commentary to Tesla by phone and e-mail yesterday were not immediately answered.

The post The New York Times Did Not Reverse Its Opinion On John Broder’s Tesla Model S Report appeared first on HybridCars.com.

This news was delivered by Tesla CEO Elon Musk in a follow up blog post yesterday to his last presentation of evidence against Broder. Musk wrote the Times’ public editor said “John Broder had ‘problems with precision and judgment,’ ‘took casual and imprecise notes’ and made ‘few conclusions that are unassailable.’

And even if Broder had been fastidious to the Nth degree, Tesla’s take on the highly publicized dispute was verified by other media outlets as well as “several” private owners of Tesla Model S who all undertook to duplicate the allegedly fated run.

“A debt of appreciation is also owed to other media outlets,” wrote Musk, “such as CNN, CNBC, and Consumer Reports, who repeated The New York Times test drive at normal highway speeds and comfortable cabin temperatures without ever running out of range.”

The Times was also flooded with hundreds of letters by owners of the Model S who showed their support for “Tesla and the electric car revolution,” Musk said.

“The bottom line is that the Model S combined with Supercharging works well for a long road trip, even in a cold, snowy winter,” wrote Musk. “Nonetheless, we will keep increasing the number of Superchargers, improving the software in the car (via over the air updates), and the technology behind the Supercharger itself.”

While it was in full swing, the Times vs. Tesla dispute was also temporary fodder for the pundits to practice their punditry, some of which gave passing attempts at objectivity, then proceeded to emphasize Broder’s side, and say such things as “all-electric cars are (basically) dead on arrival.”

True enough EVs are new technology, yet in their infancy, but it would appear reports of their death (in the cradle) have been greatly exaggerated.

UPDATE: Feb. 26, 2013: We were contacted by the New York Times explaining that despite the apparently unequivocal interpretation Elon Musk made in writing his blog post which was the basis for this report, the Times does not in fact “cede” the dispute to Tesla. The write-up cited by Musk by the public editor was explained to be her own opinion, and not representative of an official retraction of Broder’s report. Public Editor Margaret Sullivan’s clarification was pointed out to us as a note she briefly wrote Feb. 21 in the Public Editor’s Journal. It reads:

One addendum, for the sake of clarity: As public editor, I speak only for myself. My opinions about what happened during and after the Tesla Model S road test, expressed in my Monday blog post, are not those of The Times.

Commenting on this, Times Automobiles Deputy Editor Norman Mayersohn said he knew of no change in the paper’s position or support for John Broder’s article.

“Inside, I’ve heard nothing but complete support, and in meetings at the top levels on the news side of the paper, we’ve had no doubts expressed,” Mayersohn said in an e-mail to HybridCars.com. “Tesla has not released any data, only their graphic representations of the feed from the car, so there’s really no basis for any change of that viewpoint.”

The official statement from the Times’ Eileen Murphy, Mayersohn observed, reads:

The Times‘s Feb. 10 article recounting a reporter’s test drive in a Tesla Model S was completely factual, describing the trip in detail exactly as it occurred. Any suggestion that the account was “fake” is, of course, flatly untrue. Our reporter followed the instructions he was given in multiple conversations with Tesla personnel. He described the entire drive in the story; there was no unreported detour. And he was never told to plug the car in overnight in cold weather, despite repeated contact with Tesla.

Tesla blog

The post New York Times Cedes Model S Range Dispute To Tesla appeared first on HybridCars.com.