Tesla validated as NYT editor weighs in
The electric-car maker has been in the news for days after a scathing newspaper report. It has an important earnings announcement Wednesday.
Has the recent ruckus between The New York Times and Tesla Motors (TSLA) been a good or bad thing for the company? Some negative publicity about the controversial electric-car maker has kept its name and products in the spotlight -- ahead of a very important earnings report.
Earlier this month, Times reporter John Broder wrote a scathing review after a long-distance test drive in one of Tesla's premium Model S vehicles. Tesla share prices fell sharply after the article. CEO Elon Musk soon fought back, questioning Broder's journalistic integrity and wondering if he had a prejudice against electric cars in general.In the meantime, CNBC and other media outlets have done their own versions of Broder's Tesla test drive with much better results. And several Tesla owners decided to show some solidarity with the company by also re-creating the test drive and tweeting about the experience.
Times public editor Margaret Sullivan promised to investigate the controversy, and on Tuesday she published her results: Broder's article had problems with precision and judgment but not integrity. Tesla shares jumped more than 5% Tuesday in response.
While she believes Broder took the test drive in good faith, Sullivan notes he "left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored."
Meanwhile, Wall Street will be watching closely Wednesday afternoon when Tesla holds its fourth-quarter earnings call and discusses its overall 2012 results. Green Car Reports senior editor John Voelcker suggests it could be a make-or-break moment for the company.
Tesla was founded a decade ago and received $465 million in Department of Energy loans in 2010 as part of the Obama Administration's campaign to further the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. While its S model production line is apparently working at full capacity, the company is also expected to have lost money for all of last year.
And Wednesday's earnings report, Voelcker says, "will be the first chance for investors and shareholders to weigh in on the company's first real financial results as an operating carmaker."
More on moneyNOW
Sure these renewable startups need government money, but it's money well-spent. We have to get away from fossil fuels and the sooner the better. And it also dishonest not to include the amount we subsidize fossil fuels and especially the oil companies to make a valid assessment. How much does it cost to build, maintain and put into operation an aircraft carrier? And how many of them do we have on constant patrol in the Persian Gulf Region? When you include the associated costs for all the other ships in the carrier groups, wow! And the three wars we have fought in the Middle East, recently.
No folks, don't let the propanda fool you. Whatever we spend to develop alternative and renewable energies is money very well spent!
electric cars = mandatory solar cells built in the roof, imo, regardless of whos making them.
also high price = nobody will buy it anyway.
It was a HIT PIECE, plain and simple! They did EXACTLY the same thing in the 1980s against all types of renewable energy and, pretending to be objective, are playing the same crooked game on behalf of the fossil fuel corporate bastards that love to get us into wars for THEIR PROFITS and "price shocks" from "global instability" that WE foster with our CIA and military. The fossil fuel lobby, otherwise known as the oil oligarchy that runs our foreign and domestic energy policies, is having severe nightmares over the fact that renewable energy is here to stay and fossil and nuclear fuels are on the way OUT so they are pulling out all the propaganda stops to LIE us back to fossil fuel dependency. IT WON'T WORK THIS TIME!
For more info, google my article, "Hope for Viable Biosphere of Renewables; Why They Work and Fossil and Nuclear fuels NEVER DID".
HINT: THEFT OF THE COMMONS in the form of increased pollution and health costs makes fossil and nuclear fuels prohibitively expensive unless you can make WE-THE-PEOPLE EAT those costs!
Shame on the New York Times!
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] S&P futures vs fair value: -4.30. Nasdaq futures vs fair value: -9.30. The stock market is on track for a lower start as futures on the S&P 500 trade four points below fair value.
Index futures have retreated from their overnight highs following another round of disappointing data from China. This time, it was the Foreign Direct Investment report, which revealed a 1.8% decline (previous -0.4%), leading to concerns about a potential hard landing.
The ... More
More Market News
Stocks drift lower and bonds are hit as investors await the Fed. Prepare for higher volatility this week.
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'