|
Clyde, the article mentions that, as it works through its litany of any EV talking points.
That’s a valid concern. I’m happy to acknowledge it. There are some use cases for which EVs are still problematic—and there is a lot of work to be done in encouraging landlords and HOAs and others to build out and allow more EV infrastructure.
If that had been the point of the article, cool. But instead, the NYT decided to reinforce all of the old tropes against EVs. They didn’t mention the market leading EV until about halfway through (despite the fact that the market leading EV solves many of the problems they fixated on), and then they did so in the context of emphasizing how much the market leading EV also sucks.
I’ve generally resisted believing that the NYT has an anti-EV (and, in particular, anti-Tesla) bias, but their coverage is pretty hard to defend.
|