If Elon Musk is still smarting about how much damage the New York Times has done to Tesla, the fledgling automaker can take umbrage in the fact that the positive reviews are still pouring in.
For example, take a look at this glowing write-up on the Model S from Road & Track’s Jason Cammisa. Although the Tesla’s door handles receive a vigorous and thorough critical assessment, its other flaws are glossed over or simply omitted from consideration. After praising the Model S for  its remarkable driving dynamics, amazing powertrain and homegrown pedigree, Cammisa gets to the real meat of the EV issue – and promptly sidesteps it all.
Set aside the discussion as to whether EVs are actually feasible 
given our overtaxed power grid, and whether our electricity-generating power plants are any more environmentally friendly than a really efficient gasoline engine. Ignore, for a moment, that we don’t know how the Model S will age or how reliable it will be a decade on. Time will answer all of these, as well as the question of whether Tesla itself can stay solvent long enough to survive into maturity. We set them aside with the knowledge that the Tesla S means these discussions will finally be worth having. The Model S is the car that proves that the EV isn’t just viable, but truly desirable.
In my opinion, the above paragraph represents a pulled punch with respect to the real issues surrounding Tesla and EVs. It’s fine to evaluate the performance, aesthetics and build quality of the Model S as one would with any other car, especially in a road test. But 0-60 times and lateral g’s are a small part of the picture here. If EVs do not contribute to a net reduction in carbon emissions, why bother with a powertrain that offers significant compromises over an ICE equivalent? If Tesla cannot keep itself afloat, or if the car will turn into a 4000-lb paperweight in a decade, is buying a Model S a prudent decision? Despite leaving these critical questions unanswered, Cammisa somehow asserts that EVs are in fact “viable” and that these discussions are “…will finally be worth having”.
My question is, why aren’t we having them already, in influential publications like Road & Track? Despite what Cammisa says, we don’t have to wait for time to pass before we know the answers. A bit of intellectual labor can give us a picture of how things will play out. Furthermore a publication like R&T has both the budget and freedom from the daily grind of the blogosphere news cycle to delve into these matters.
Sure, there are a number of agenda-driven entities that propagate bad information and do little to enhance the discourse, but isn’t journalism all about sifting through bad information to find the truth? I’ve been down this road before; when the “scandal” regarding the Tesla Roadster and “bricked” batteries came out early in 2012, TTAC was among the first to call bullshit on the claims of the plaintiffs. The exercise illuminated why doing the “hard work” was so important. This is an era where hearsay can quickly become fact – a dangerous prospect given how much bad information is already floating around out there. The onus is on us as journalists to, well, do our jobs and find out the truth – whether it’s getting to the bottom of a malicious smear campaign against a fledgling startup, or determining the viability of pure EVs outside of the normal “car guy” parameters of going fast and looking cool.
