Model S battery problems? Tesla and the Times trade jabs.

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, says a recent report on the Model S sedan is 'fake.' 

Reuters
A view of the Tesla Model S with rear facing seats and the company's charging station at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, on Jan. 15.

Last week, John M. Broder of the New York Times published a hands-on test of the Tesla Model S sedan. The premise of the article was simple: Mr. Broder would drive the Model S along a stretch of I-95, on the east coast, stopping in at new charging stations at plazas in Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn. Along the way, he'd discover if the Model S could truly achieve its advertised 300-mile range. 

Broder made it from Washington, his starting point, to Newark, with little problem. But the next day, according to Broder, the car "barely" reached Milford, and a day after that, the battery died completely, apparently the result of cold weather, forcing Broder to summon a flatbed truck to take him back to Milford, where he could have the Model S charged again. 

When it comes to electric cars, Broder opined, "theory can be trumped by reality, especially when Northeast temperatures plunge." 

Obviously, this is not particularly good press for Tesla, which wants consumers to feel comfortable in its cars – and few people are going to feel comfortable if they're gazing at the battery gauge every three seconds and sweating bullets. So no one should be too surprised by the response today from Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of Tesla. 

"NYTimes article about Tesla range in cold is fake," Musk recently posted on Twitter

He followed that tweet up with an interview with CNBC, wherein he explained that he had downloaded the vehicle logs from Broder's test car. The logs, he said, "showed in fact [that Broder] had not charged up to the maximum charge in the car. It's like starting off a drive with a tank that's not full." He also said Broder took extensive detours and cranked down on the gas pedal, which may have had adverse effects on the gauge. 

Actually, "fake" may not be exactly the right word. Instead, what Musk appears to be arguing is that Broder misrepresented his test drive. 

The Times, in turn, has vehemently denied that allegation. In a day full of back and forth accusations, the paper issued a press release, obtained by CNBC, standing by Broder's reporting. 

"Any suggestion that the account was 'fake' is, of course, flatly untrue," the statement reads. "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." 

Own a Tesla? Thinking about purchasing one? Drop us a line in the comments section. And for more tech news, follow us on Twitter@CSMHorizonsBlog

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.