There's an argument about the "long game" though. The point of marketing isn't to get customers money right now, that's what "sales" is about.
If you believe (FWIW: I do, but let's please not get back into that here) that Broder's review was sensationalized nonsense essentially intended to spin every minor glitch into a negative story, then what this hissy fit did is make sure, by making an example out of Broder and his editors, that all the other journalists out there don't try the same thing.
Basically, Musk is trading some instantaneous bad press for fairer press in the future (which is sort of already happening, c.f. the CNN ride yesterday which contradicts Broder and certainly wouldn't have happened without the controversy). That may or may not be a net benefit, but it's a more subtle analysis than the "did he harm more than help" one you are arguing for.
I don't believe Broder's review was nonsensical, which probably accounts for why I don't subscribe to the idea that this was a smart long-term strategy for Musk, but I understand why reasonable people think that. However, Musk can afford to play long games with PR. Most startups can't.
Regarding reviews in particular: I've done a bunch of them at previous companies, and I think the average first-time founder on HN would be very surprised to learn how subjective and relationship-based they are. I once "won" a bakeoff review for a product I was managing, only to "lose" it later in the week when the reviewer wrote a followup story about improvements in the runner-up. The net effect was negative; it turned us into the de facto runner up.
Most tech product reviews are much more subjective than this Tesla review. You have to have a lot of traction in the market for an important review to revolve around simple "speeds and feeds" issues like how much mileage your vehicle gets. Pissing off reviewers is almost always going to be a losing strategy, even when you're right.
"the CNN ride yesterday which contradicts Broder and certainly wouldn't have happened without the controversy"
The CNN ride comes off as a cheap PR stunt now.
The "long game" was already lost when Musk proved himself incapable of handling a non-glowing review. There was a way for Tesla to spin this favorably and talk about their technological advancements (talk about the weather and how you should charge it in the cold, how technology in the car ensures that it will start after being in the cold overnight) but instead Tesla decided to go for the sensationalist angle.
As many have discussed at length in other threads, the Broder account wasn't "sensationalist". It in fact is corroborated to a great extent by Musk's data.
If Musk gave a civil reply acknowledging what happened without making it sound like a fake, we wouldn't have this conversation days later.
I think he's trading bad press now for no press in the future. Musk has now established that he's going to go after anyone that makes a negative review about the car. So why bother dealing with Tesla and Musk if something goes wrong, when you can go review cars from just about every other manufacturer and not have to deal with it?
I don't understand why you treat the CNN ride as if it refuted what the NYT did, since it was not the same experiment:
There were some differences with my ride and the one from the New York Times. The weather for mine was about 10 degrees warmer. And I did mine in one day; the reviewer from the Times split it into two.
And the CNN author has some of the same concerns in the end, although not the same output:
On Thursday, I took the same drive -- and I made it to Boston, though not without some anxiety that I would run out of juice.
..
Looking back on the trip, it would be even easier if Tesla would install one of their fast-charging Superchargers along the New Jersey Turnpike.
If you believe (FWIW: I do, but let's please not get back into that here) that Broder's review was sensationalized nonsense essentially intended to spin every minor glitch into a negative story, then what this hissy fit did is make sure, by making an example out of Broder and his editors, that all the other journalists out there don't try the same thing.
Basically, Musk is trading some instantaneous bad press for fairer press in the future (which is sort of already happening, c.f. the CNN ride yesterday which contradicts Broder and certainly wouldn't have happened without the controversy). That may or may not be a net benefit, but it's a more subtle analysis than the "did he harm more than help" one you are arguing for.