Tesla Motors Model S Review: NYTimes Public Editor Responds to Uproar, Cites "Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity"

The New York Times has officially weighed in on the debate over a biting review of the Tesla Model S electric car published two weeks ago.

John Broder's review in the Times claimed the car ran out of power mid-journey, stranding him on the side of the road. Tesla founder Elon Musk shot back, saying Broder intentionally ran the car down to make it look bad, releasing data logs recorded by the test car that appeared to debunk Broder's claims.

CNN and Model S owners all completed their own independent recreations of Broder's drive with nary a hitch, and Broder responded with his explanations for many of the discrepancies between his account and the logs.

Now, after sifting through the evidence, the New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan -- who is in charge of investigating possible ethics violations or breaches of journalistic integrity by the paper or its employees -- has made her official statement.

"I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it," Sullivan said in her column in the Times. But Broder is not cleared of all fault, either.

"Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially," she writes. "In addition, Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey."

But she has harsh words for Musk, as well.

 "A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs, which Mr. Musk has used, in the most damaging (and sometimes quite misleading) ways possible, as he defended his vehicle's reputation."

Sullivan notes the vitriol on both sides of the debate, which she says is unwarranted and overblown by those involved. In essence, she says the entire debacle is a misunderstanding, caused by casual carelessness and a heavy-handed PR response.

It's unlikely that either Broder's defenders or his critics will be satisfied with this relatively tepid and indefinite response.