Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation AI The Media

Should The Media Cover Tesla Accidents? (chicagotribune.com) 268

Long-time Slashdot reader rufey writes: Last weekend a Tesla vehicle was involved in a crash near Salt Lake City Utah while its Autopilot feature was enabled. The Tesla, a Model S, crashed into the rear end of a fire department utility truck, which was stopped at a red light, at an estimated speed of 60 MPH. "The car appeared not to brake before impact, police said. The driver, whom police have not named, was taken to a hospital with a broken foot," according to the Associated Press. "The driver of the fire truck suffered whiplash and was not taken to a hospital."
Elon Musk tweeted about the accident:

It's super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage. What's actually amazing about this accident is that a Model S hit a fire truck at 60mph and the driver only broke an ankle. An impact at that speed usually results in severe injury or death.

The Associated Press defended their news coverage Friday, arguing that the facts show that "not all Tesla crashes end the same way." They also fact-check Elon Musk's claim that "probability of fatality is much lower in a Tesla," reporting that it's impossible to verify since Tesla won't release the number of miles driven by their cars or the number of fatalities. "There have been at least three already this year and a check of 2016 NHTSA fatal crash data -- the most recent year available -- shows five deaths in Tesla vehicles."

Slashdot reader Reygle argues the real issue is with the drivers in the Autopilot cars. "Someone unwilling to pay attention to the road shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that road ever again."


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should The Media Cover Tesla Accidents?

Comments Filter:
  • by triffid_98 ( 899609 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @02:50PM (#56639362)

    It's super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage.

    A. It really wasn't front page news unless you count maybe the local paper

    B. There is this thing called statistics. The United States has over 263 Million registered cars not including the 3 warehouses worth of them that Jay Leno owns. You have yet to make 200 Thousand. It's also expected that your brand new luxury cars will be marginally safer than my 1974 AMC Gremlin.

    • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @02:56PM (#56639388) Journal

      It's also expected that your brand new luxury cars will be marginally safer than my 1974 AMC Gremlin.

      I don't think that there is any doubt about whether a Tesla is safer than your 1974 AMC Gremlin*. The question is whether Teslas are more likely to be involved in an accident than other cars (including your Gremlin).

      * you choose to drive a classic car and the model you choose is a Gremlin? Really? You could not find a collectible car with more class? 1957 MGA here.

      • * you choose to drive a classic car and the model you choose is a Gremlin? Really? You could not find a collectible car with more class? 1957 MGA here.

        What makes his Gremlin less classy than your MGA? The increased reliability?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by triffid_98 ( 899609 )

        The question is whether Teslas are more likely to be involved in an accident than other cars

        They are incredibly less likely to be involved in an accident than other cars because you can hardly find one outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. This isn't necessarily because they are safer but because nobody can afford them and Tesla is incapable of building them in any kind of volume, and what is safer than a car you can't even buy?

        you choose to drive a classic car and the model you choose is a Gremlin? Real

        • This isn't necessarily because they are safer but because nobody can afford them and Tesla is incapable of building them in any kind of volume,

          The Model 3 in my garage suggests that you are wrong on both counts.

          While I respect your choice of a tractor engined MGA that leaks more fluids daily than a jock on prom night

          You are thinking of Triumphs. The B-series engine was never used in a tractor. The nearest agricultural application was a combine harvester. The leaking thing, though? That's just my car marki

          • This isn't necessarily because they are safer but because nobody can afford them and Tesla is incapable of building them in any kind of volume,

            The Model 3 in my garage suggests that you are wrong on both counts.

            The Model 3 in your garage suggests that you were willing to buy a supposedly $35,000 car minus rebates for $55,000 because nobody that pre-ordered the base model has yet to receive one to date. They started delivering dual motor version this year (edging ever closer to Model S specs) but the bas

          • You are thinking of Triumphs. The B-series engine was never used in a tractor. The nearest agricultural application was a combine harvester.

            After much (2 minutes) of research I concur...it was used in the Marina Princess and the Wolseley 16 which is almost as insulting (although far more obscure to 'Muricans) so I'll go with that.

            I'm also going to stop questioning you about the $55,000+ 'Model 3' you bought even though the theoretical base price is $35,000-rebate and still remains entirely theoretical

            • After much (2 minutes) of research I concur...it was used in the Marina Princess and the Wolseley 16 which is almost as insulting (although far more obscure to 'Muricans) so I'll go with that.

              Don't forget the Hindustan Ambassador.

              I'm also going to stop questioning you about the $55,000+ 'Model 3'

              Yeah, it was a bitter pill to swallow to pay $9k for the long range battery and another $5k for the premium package. But, on the flip side, it's so much fun to drive. And, the simple fact is, I can afford it.

              • Yeah, it was a bitter pill to swallow to pay $9k for the long range battery and another $5k for the premium package

                So you're saying you need 310 miles of range in a country that is only 301 miles wide at its longest point (485 km for you) and features excellent mass transportation?

                Help us peons live through you, exactly what advanced features do you get with the $5K premium package and how far was I off on my $55K USD price point discounting for tariffs and import duties?

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @03:44PM (#56639606)

      A. It really wasn't front page news unless you count maybe the local paper

      Let's examine this one shall we? This isn't the first time I heard this story mentioned and not through some Streisand effect either. This shit is showing up in general on news sites everywhere and even in my Google feed under the generic "car" header. I don't even live in America let alone locally. So why should this get covered? An estimated 5500 people get injured every day in the USA due to car accidents, and about 90 die. Yet here we are talking about a broken ankle.

      B. There is this thing called statistics.

      Exactly. So by your own account we should be seeing 1460x the coverage of the competition's fender benders. But we don't.

      These statistics remind me of the previous media crusade against Tesla: Car fires. OMG Tesla's are unsafe because they can catch fire! The media seemed to want to cover a car fire every opportunity it happened to Tesla. I didn't hear of the 150000 other non Tesla fires that happen either, because no one seems to give a shit about statistics.

      • I didn't hear of the 150000 other non Tesla fires that happen either

        Because that = 0.00006 of the non Tesla cars?

      • "Exactly. So by your own account we should be seeing 1460x the coverage of the competition's fender benders. But we don't."

        That's one interpretation, the other is that we should be seeing 1/1460x of the Tesla coverage that we do and their stock prices should actually make some kind of rational sense. Since I can guess which one of these Elon would prefer, I'm suggesting he STFU, but if you want to personally argue about it maybe argue the points I raised instead of making up your own and hitting reply?
  • And? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @02:54PM (#56639382) Homepage

    The Associated Press defended their news coverage Friday, arguing that the facts show that "not all Tesla crashes end the same way." They also fact-check Elon Musk's claim that "probability of fatality is much lower in a Tesla," reporting that it's impossible to verify since Tesla won't release the number of miles driven by their cars or the number of fatalities. "There have been at least three already this year and a check of 2016 NHTSA fatal crash data -- the most recent year available -- shows five deaths in Tesla vehicles.

    And? That's their defense? At the start of 2016 there were 69k Teslas on US roads; at the end, 110k. Average of ~90k. There were 113 million registered cars on US roads in 2016, and 37461 deaths, or 1 in 3000 cars. 90k Teslas on average with 5 deaths means 1 in 18000 Teslas.

    This is how AP defends itself?

    Seriously, what sort of argument is "not all Tesla crashes end the same way" to begin with? Wait a minute, you're telling me that Teslas aren't invincible? OMG, I guess the star wore off, that explains why it's not flashing anymore!

    • Newspapers are not academic statiticians, they are out to sell copies. Tesla crashes sell copies. Musk has largely brought this publicity on himself by deliberately adopting a high profile and pumping out hype.

      Since it seems you (Rei) might be a Musk insider, care to respond to AP's complaint that Tesla will not release mileage figures, by giving us those figures? We are all agog here.

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @04:06PM (#56639740) Homepage Journal

      90k Teslas on average with 5 deaths means 1 in 18000 Teslas.

      Useless statistic. Yes, that's ostensibly lower than the average (one per 13,000 cars) for all registered vehicles in the U.S., but without knowing how many miles the Teslas were driven, we can't know if that's actually low or high.

      Typically, the number of accidents (and, thus, fatal accidents) is proportional to the number of miles driven, not the number of cars. Some cars sit in somebody's front yard rusting, and never even see the road except when another car isn't working. And people who are wealthy enough to afford Teslas are more likely to live close to work, and thus have shorter commutes, so they are exposed to fewer opportunities for wrecks. They're also less likely to be driving home for an hour or more after a long day of work, and thus less likely to suffer from fatigue-related crashes.

      And even if you assume all of those confounding factors don't exist, there's still the elephant in the room, which is that most folks use AP only on streets where it has worked well for them in the past. Thus, the potential for AP-caused accidents is artificially reduced. If some other driver used it differently, that other driver could have very different results, making a general "this makes driving safer" conclusion impossible to reach without much more fine-grained data in which you compare the crash rates for various types of driving (city streets versus highways, urban versus rural, straight versus windy) independently with AutoPilot off versus on.

      And realistically, you also need to separately compare AP unavailable versus AP off, because drivers may behave differently when they have deliberately disabled AP versus drivers who do not have AP. (This can determine to what extent regular use of AP makes drivers less situationally aware over time.)

      In short, comparing the number of crashes to the number of vehicles is so prone to being skewed by other variables that it is almost useless as a metric for the safety of the vehicles. You might as well throw darts at a dartboard.

      Personally, I think that AutoPilot reduces driver fatigue, which likely improves safety on the whole. But I'm not willing to state that definitively without actual data, which Tesla has thus far refused to provide. That's unfortunate, and it makes me wonder if they have something to hide. After all, if the data really were in their favor, you would expect them to be quick to release it. Unless, of course, they just haven't bothered to do any analysis, in which case I wonder about their competence.

      In other words, I would say to Tesla, "Data or GTFO."

      • Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @06:26PM (#56640220) Homepage

        Meanwhile, in the real world, you'd find (if you actually hung out with Tesla owners) that when people get their Tesla, they tend to drive it more than the vehicle that it replaced, not less. For multiple reasons. One, it's a new car; they want to drive it. Two, it's a fun car, which reinforces #1. People often go on road trips in them. And three, it's cheaper to operate. The consequence of this is that multiple car households try to put as much distance on the Tesla as possible and minimize the distance spent driving their other vehicle.

        And if you want to talk about demographics, EVs are most popular among people who own homes, not people who rent apartments / condos. Aka, the suburbs, not downtown.

        As for whether people tend to use AP more or less in certain situations, that's irrelevant. AP isn't self driving; it's a combination of a human and the vehicle, and the result that matters is how the two interact. If the human - in driving 1/3 to 1/2 of the average vehicle's distance - does so in cases that AP handles best... well, good.

        But trying to break apart AP and non-AP is beside the point. Associated Pres is trying to portray Teslas as dangerous. The numbers they gave to "prove their case" do precisely the opposite.

  • five deaths in Tesla vehicles.

    A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.

    What would be a useful addition to the debate would be to understand just how much of the time Tesla drivers use autopilot. Is it engaged for (say) 90% of the time on almost all journeys? Or is it only used for a tiny fraction of the miles that Teslas clock up?

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.

      Huh? Did you miss the "2016 NHTSA fatal crash data"? That was the number of deaths in one year in the US. Not total.

      The number of deaths related to AP in the US is:

      * Williston, Florida (May 7, 2016) - side of a white truck
      * Mountain View, California (March 23, 2018) - concrete barrier missing the crash attenuator

      Of the deaths in 2016, only 1 in 5 were related to Auto

    • A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.

      The major cause of accidents in Teslas is the same as in other cars, and is mechanical: a loose nut behind the steering wheel.

      Maybe Tesla needs some super fancy AI that detects dangerous driving conditions and refuses to engage the autopilot:

      "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

      Otherwise the autopilot might morph into a "auto loose nut" mode.

    • five deaths in Tesla vehicles.

      A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.

      You need to redo that search. There was the crash in Florida just a couple weeks ago [usatoday.com] that resulted in fatalities and did not have autopilot running - instead, it was the entirely predictable result of 3 teenagers driving at 60 mph around a turn known as "deadman's curve".

  • The media should report on whatever they think is newsworthy.
    • The media should report on whatever they think is newsworthy.

      Dog bites man: not news.

      Man bites dog: news.

      Senile grandmother rear-ends truck: not news.

      Autopilot rear-ends truck: news.

  • If you want to lead a public-facing life, you better be prepared for the positive and negative publicity. The media is a business and the MBA-types know that if a story contains death, despair, or destruction, it will attract more viewership/readership allowing the network to charge a premium for advertising. Is this messed up? Yes, it is. But Elon Musk chose this life for himself so he has to take the good with the bad like everybody else. He does not get a free pass because he's wealthy. He's not better t
  • It's super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage. What's actually amazing about this accident is that a Model S hit a fire truck at 60mph and the driver only broke an ankle. An impact at that speed usually results in severe injury or death.

    Elon should go have a beer with Tim Cook. Literally half a dozen iPhones behind the (awesomely named) Bendgazi yet it was a huge story. Me

  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @03:12PM (#56639436)

    What's actually amazing about this accident is that a Model S hit a fire truck at 60mph and the driver only broke an ankle. An impact at that speed usually results in severe injury or death.

    It's called Media bias. For that reason, I do not watch MSM anymore. If they're not regurgitating government propaganda, they are telling blatant lies.

    From the WMDs, to Syria and the Mid East, to doping in games.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Or it's reasonable reporting on the most common type of car with level 2 autonomy features.

      What we need to see is if they report accidents with Nissan ProPilot and GM Super Cruise enabled cars just as often. That would be a very useful comparison, since both have more safety/nag features than tesla does.

  • by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @03:13PM (#56639442)

    You want to promote your darling as the next evolutionary step that will replace all existing automobiles. You're especially proud of your " autonomous driving " feature. This accident is news because Tesla supposedly rolled out a safety update that enabled automatic emergency braking but appears to have been limited to vehicles operating under 50mph. ( Whoops, guess we should have upped that a bit )

    See, when you promote your vehicle with said safety features and it still ends up crashing just like the " dumb " cars out there, it doesn't shine a positive light on your over-hyped / over-priced* product. ( *Compared to the typical ICE vehicle )

    Moral of the story: When in the spotlight, you don't get to pick and choose what people see.

    • See, when you promote your vehicle with said safety features and it still ends up crashing just like the " dumb " cars out there

      Ignoring the competition which has had these safety features for years? I mean am I right in assuming that there have been zero accidents from any Nissan manufactured since 2015? Because someone's broken ankle certainly hasn't made the news when it happened for Nissan's automatic emergency breaking. So I guess no one has had a fender bender in a Volvo in the past 8 years either right?

  • ... the question asked should be more along the lines of... Why is the public so interested in Tesla crashes, and not in the tens of thousands of auto crashes that result in deaths each year? The media is just following the interest of the public.
    • Why is the public so interested in Tesla crashes, and not in the tens of thousands of auto crashes that result in deaths each year?

      Statistically Tesla crashes are meaningless due to their tiny market share. Tesla complaining about that is funny. Tens of thousands / Hundreds of Millions of cars = not that much. Tesla claims they are far superior so yes, when they crash there might be a tiny bit more scrutiny. I don't see how that is either public or the media's fault, Tesla invited this by saying how much

  • The main problem is that users become too relaxed and complacent. Solution: activating autopilot will bring up HAL's eye on the screen with a "Good morning Dave" (regardless of time of day or name of driver). When autopilot finds a situation that it can't handle, it can say, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that". When the user takes control away from the autopilot, the autopilot can say: "I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work wil
  • I have a couple of thoughts on all of this.

    1. The news media is interested in covering anything that's sensational and grabs viewer eyeballs. We've had house fires for about as long as we had houses, yet they'll still put those on the evening news any time they have some dramatic footage to show people. By the same token, if you're a high profile company that lots of people follow (like Apple or Tesla), you're also going to find yourself in the media spotlight any time an excuse can be made to do it. People

  • As long as you call it an "Autopilot" and, despite telling people to pay attention, make sure that people are able to treat it as a full Autopilot and not pay attention [slashdot.org], then the media should report every instance of someone crashing because they followed Tesla's implied instructions.

    Now Musk might be correct that semi-attentive drivers with the Autopilot are safer than typical non-Autopilot drivers, even if the Autopilot sometimes screws up. But he's hardly a reputable source when he keeps playing this "Lo

    • As long as you call it an "Autopilot"

      ...then people should understand that, just like an aviation autopilot or a marine autopilot, it will pilot you straight into an obstacle if you're not paying attention.

      • As long as you call it an "Autopilot"

        ...then people should understand that, just like an aviation autopilot or a marine autopilot, it will pilot you straight into an obstacle if you're not paying attention.

        Except you get a bit more reaction time in the air or ocean.

        Of course, even there, one real cause of airplane accidents is when a situation arises where the auto-pilot needs to disengage and the highly trained professional pilots get confused and screw up. This is because those people, whose job it literally is to pay attention and be ready to retake control, find it extremely hard to do so.

      • Ground Prox systems tend to work really well in planes and scream at the pilot "PULL UP! PULL UP!" plenty early to avoid any issue (I worked on them for a little bit, back in the 1980s). Likewise collision RADAR returns on marine autopilot systems. If something is within 3-5 miles of your boat, it will scream at you until you turn it off (meaning you are now back in control). Does the Tesla Autopilot issue any loud warning at all to grab the attention of the driver?
  • If Musk is doing everything he can to get the message across that Autopilot is NOT autonomous driving, should he not be happy that the news covers people getting into serious accidents by trying to use it like an autonomous vehicle? This seems to be consistent with what he wants, if a lot of commenters here are correct. If this isn't what he wants, then he isn't really trying to get the message out that these cars can kill you if you don't pay attention.
  • Why wouldn't the media do its job and report on such accidents? It's no different than when a plane crashes. It happens so rarely it is a news event.

    The same with Tesla. The number of crashes of Tesla vehicles is small, but because of the hype surrounding Tesla, promulgated by Musk himself, any crash should be examined.

    If Musk doesn't like the media reporting on the crashes of his vehicles, then perhaps he shouldn't be out and about promoting how safe they are or that they practically drive themselves.

  • "Standard Safety Features
    These active safety technologies, including collision avoidance and automatic emergency braking, have begun rolling out through over-the-air updates

    Automatic Emergency Braking

    Designed to detect objects that the car may impact and applies the brakes accordingly
    Side Collision Warning

    Warns the driver of potential collisions with obstacles alongside the car
    Front Collision Warning

    Helps warn of impending collisions with slower moving or stationary cars"

    So which of these did her car have?

  • The media should cover the non-fatal crashes - ONCE a year, listing each crash and the results, along with percentage (by both per vehicle and per miles driven) comparing it the same stats for a similar car.

    But covering a broken foot crash as if it's breaking news? That's called bad reporting.

  • Slashdot reader Reygle argues the real issue is with the drivers in the Autopilot cars. "Someone unwilling to pay attention to the road shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that road ever again."

    The issue is that Tesla sells an Autopilot, whilst everyone else sells a driver assist package. To the average person, Autopilot means it will pilot itself - you don't have to do anything. Driver assist means it will help, but you're still the driver. The issue is Tesla uses highly-misleading words to describe their under-performing product and then gets upset when people are misled. Change the freaking name from Autopilot! But Elon can't do that, because it would be an admission of failure...

    • by Socguy ( 933973 )
      Who cares what the 'average' person thinks. What matters is if Tesla OWNERS are aware that autopilot is not fully autonomous and guess what, they do. Some just choose to ignore that little fact.
  • Tesla accidents should be reported until we get tired of viewing them.

  • Sure, the media should cover these crashes. They're news, after all.
    But, they should be held responsible for defamation when they cover the story in a misleading, reputation-damaging way. For example, after the recent crash in Florida that resulted in two deaths, there were lots of articles with headlines like "Autopilot-equipped Tesla Crashes, Kills 2" or "Fatal Crash in Florida Involving Tesla with Autopilot," and the articles would start off with "A Tesla Model S equipped with Autopilot was involved in
  • "Don't drive into stationary objects" - that's so basic, it isn't even covered in driving 101. Any driver who showed over and over he couldn't do that would have his license revoked. And if his excuse was that above 60 mph he was too busy with moving objects to do that, doubly so.
    • Teslae don't use LIDAR and therefore presumably don't know how far away objects are. I.e. Pike's Peak and a discarded fast food wrapper presumably can look much the same to your $80,000 electric car. When driving, you and I Identify the nature of an object and use that knowledge to estimate distance, but that's very hard for a computer. Conceptually an alternative would be two cameras and compute distance from parallax, but that's not especially easy either -- especially if you're going to be picky abou

  • A Tesla catches fire.

    OHMYFUCKINGGAWD! Teslas burn! We must ba them and go back to old school vehicles that never burn and are safe!

    A guy drives with autpopilot screaming at him and runs into something.

    OHMYFUCKINGGAWD! Teslas autopilots Are deadly cna Kill people!!!! At least no one ever ran into anything usingCruise con troy, which is percetly safe.

    I would love to see every accident in the US given the same coverage as teh OHMYFUCKINGGAWD! Teslas get.

    Now of course if one's head is stuck in th

  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday May 19, 2018 @06:06PM (#56640154)
    The problem is that car accidents are in general vastly under-reported by the media. Until the last couple years, the single most dangerous thing you did was to get into a car (surpassed only recently by drug overdoses). On average, about 1 in 102 people you know are fated to die in a car accident [nsc.org]. Compare to the odds of some of the other things the media devotes a disproportionately high (or low) amount of coverage time:

    Suicide: 1 in 91
    Police killed on duty: 1 in 104 (1.1 million officers / (135 per year [time.com] * 78 year lifespan normalization)
    Homicide by gun: 1 in 285
    Drowning: 1 in 1,086
    Fire: 1 in 1,506
    Choking: 1 in 3,138
    Killed by police: 1 in 4,336 (325.7 million / (963 [washingtonpost.com] * 78 year lifespan)
    Complications from pregnancy: 1 in 5,965 (325.7 million / (700 [cdc.gov] * 78 year normalization)
    Terrorism in U.S.: 1 in 28,033 (325.7 million / (3277 [umd.edu] * 78 year lifespan / 22 years sample))
    Killed by deer: 1 in 34,797 (325.7 million / (120 [vox.com] * 78 year lifespan)
    Gun accident: 1 in 8305
    Lightning: 1 in 114,195
    School shootings: 1 in 121,033 (325.7 million / (138 [time.com] * 78 year lifespan normalization / 4 years sample))
    Dog attack: 1 in 132,614
    Plane crash: 1 in 205,552
    Terrorism in U.S. excluding 9/11: 1 in 248,954
    Shark attack: 1 in 3,690,101 (325.7 million / (43 [wikipedia.org] * 78 year lifespan / 38 year sample)

    If news reports were truly unbiased, you'd expect to see:

    Roughly 3x as many reports about fatal car accidents than gun homicides.
    5x as many reports of women dying from pregnancy than reports of terrorism fatalities (including 9/11, 77x without).
    39x as many stories about people dying of choking on food, versus school shootings.
    43x as many stories about fatal car accidents than police shootings.
    91x as many reports about suicides than gun accidents.
    Over 100x as many stories about people being killed by deer, than killed by sharks.

    The truth is the media picks and chooses which stories they want to publicize, whether it be because of their unusual and provocative nature (e.g. Tesla crashes, plane crashes, school shootings, shark attacks), or to serve a political agenda.
  • Should be if the media should cover all the school shootings? The media needs to stop glorifying the shooters and the next shooting may not be so quick. At this point you know there are psychos out there trying to figure out how to get a better score and be more famous/infamous than the last shooter...

  • We see articles about school shootings, even though dozens or hundreds of people are killed every day from gun crimes and gun violence. We see news about airplane crashes, even though (as Musk says), there are so many more automobile crashes. The thing is, no matter how bad something is, as long as it's commonplace, it's not going to make the news.
  • TESLA (and all things TESLA, like stock prices, what Wall Street thinks, who is buying and selling, financial analysis, current and future models, a half dozen Musk-related businesses that are not TESLA but invoke a brief note about TESLA none the less, and ... oh yes ... TESLA accidents that might involve self-driving features, and TESLA accidents where self-driving mode was confirmed at the time of the accident, and any story about electric automobiles or self-driving vehicles by any manufacturer will inv

  • Media should cover Tesla accidents as long as it's fair and of public interest, and that is not something that Musk should have any right to say if it's ok or not... he should just shut the fuck up and have a better PR strategy than whinning about it being unfair, like Trump with it's "fake media" claims.
    If you are gonna offer a disruptive technology that is going against traditional brands and whatnot, of course it'll get coverage, and that includes the bad stuff. I don't see Musk complaining about tech bl

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Working...