The New York Times
Neal E. Boudette
The article analyzed the latest initiative launched by Tesla Motors – upgrading autopilot in approximately 70,000 of its vehicles on the road. It involves utilizing cellular networks to update software that will be useful for upgrading the autopilot driver support system. The program intends to enable the company to reach its customers through mass media on issues related to vehicle fixes as well as establishing means of having major enhancements downloaded. This outstanding technological feat began the very week Boudette wrote this article – around one month ago. The motive behind this feat is the need to avoid faults that led to the disastrous crashes, which occurred along the Florida highway back in May and other accidents that might occur in the future if appropriate measures are not taken. That said, the author questions the effectiveness of the launched initiative and calls drivers for being attentive while driving.
From the summary above, it is clear that this initiative targets individuals, who own cars from the company – Tesla Motors. It means that the article is written within the frame of invisibility, as current and potential Tesla owners are mentioned, while the interest of others is not. At the same time, it is a peculiar referral to social class and privilege because this company is known as a luxury manufacturer. So, representatives of the middle and lower classes can hardly afford to buy one. This referral is pointed to by drawing lines between Tesla and Apple’s iPhone, which is commonly associated with a sign of prestige and a positive social image. Moreover, there is a hint at the concept of power. As mentioned by one of the research directors of Gartner Group, Tesla senior executives have enough power to control their autos while they are on the road. At the same time, they have enough power to direct the lives of Tesla owners, as updating software and upgrading the autopilot system might contribute to decreasing the risks of fatal crashes. More than that, they can choose to put people driving their cars at risk of accidents by offering an experimental version of autopilot. Finally, the concept of power is seen in the ability to inspire changes in automobile manufacturing by advocating for the implementation of only perfectly operating software in autos offered by other companies. However, this ability is ignored. From this perspective, the frame of power is closely related to invisibility because only the lives of Tesla owners are valued.
Also, it is imperative to point to the significance of media functions. In this case, it is seen as a tool for controlling people. For instance, visual and audio advancements are used for reminding drivers to stay focused and make sure to keep their hands on the steering wheel. At the same time, the informational function of media is highlighted, as the latest software offers pictures of a car, its location on the road, and map information. On the other hand, the article suggests that the influence of media on human life is crucial. The rationale for coming up with this statement is the very instance of a mentioned accident. If a driver stayed focused and ignored the option of autopilot, the outcome of the story might have been different.
In conclusion, it is imperative to state that both authors use different frames to make the message more persuasive. That said, preference is given to visual messages (demonstrating options of autopilot software), some real-life issues (e.g., a fatal crash and changes in legislation), and referrals to external research (quotes of people, who are believed to be experts due to their ranks). These frames contribute to the strength of provided arguments and explain the potential causes of the changes in the company’s policy.
Bloomberg
Edward Niedermeyer
This article analyzes Hype Machine, i.e. the very essence of Tesla’s autopilot. The key argument made in the article is that there ought to be a clear distinction between the true capabilities of the system and the expectations of a car driver/owner. The chief point that critics and regulators have capitalized on is their relentless opposition to the autopilot system. That is, the assumption that it is capable of handling the complexities of the urban highways is unfounded and Tesla is not at the stage of automobile development it states it is. This article refers to the recent software update and unpredictable outcomes it is associated with, i.e. the death of a Tesla driver.
Just like in the case of the first article, the concept of power is one of the major lines of this article. It is seen not only in power to affect people’s lives but also in breaking promises, which might lead to fatal cases. This statement can be supported by the fact that the initially introduced hardware, which might make a car autonomous, is now called a driver-assist system. Moreover, the concept of power is closely related to privilege. It is seen not only in a prestigious brand but also as an opportunity to offer a fascinating experience related to testing the new autopilot system to everyone already owning a Tesla vehicle. This one is closely connected to the psychological nature of a human being, as each person using a novelty, which is not yet available to masses, feels privileged.
At the same time, the issue of functions of media is as well mentioned. It can be referred to as the image of Big Brother introduced by Orwell because the latest software makes it possible to collect data while a car is on the road. Furthermore, the influence of mass media is as well emphasized. In this case, it is essential to recollect the promotion of the beta version of autopilot, as it was demonstrated as a tool for making a car autonomous. On the other hand, it is hinted that it shapes people’s perception of the novelties, as company founder claims that negative articles do not necessarily contain true information, but they could still demotivate Tesla owners to use autopilot and decrease demand for Tesla automobiles. Finally, the idea of difference is as well traced. It is seen in the difference between the product description and what the company offers in practice. More than that, it can be located in the difference between customers’ expectations and reality, as the software, they are proposed to use is not what they were promised.
Just like the author of the first article, Mr. Niedermeyer deploys different frames to influence the perception of his message. The only difference in the chosen frames is the fact that the latter article includes a photo of a fatal crash and detailed descriptions of the offered software. Together with the best techniques, they make the article persuasive and provide reasons for believing the mentioned information.