@jacklew15.bsky.social
This reference cites Mother Jones, who made the faulty claim.
Have a read of this: academic.oup.com/socpro/artic...
“Using original documents and recent interviews, we argue that there never was a “decision” to market an unsafe vehicle.”
Have a read of this: academic.oup.com/socpro/artic...
“Using original documents and recent interviews, we argue that there never was a “decision” to market an unsafe vehicle.”
Pinto “Madness” as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis*
For two decades, the Pinto case has been the “landmark narrative” used to support the construction of amoral corporate behavior. We argue that critical fla
academic.oup.com
November 30, 2024 at 7:04 PM
This reference cites Mother Jones, who made the faulty claim.
Have a read of this: academic.oup.com/socpro/artic...
“Using original documents and recent interviews, we argue that there never was a “decision” to market an unsafe vehicle.”
Have a read of this: academic.oup.com/socpro/artic...
“Using original documents and recent interviews, we argue that there never was a “decision” to market an unsafe vehicle.”
That’s misinformation. The cost-benefit analysis in that infamous memo you refer to “had nothing to do with Ford Pinto, or even with fires in rear-end collisions, and the values assigned to death and injury were calculated by NHTSA, not Ford.”
Source: www.motortrend.com/features/for...
Source: www.motortrend.com/features/for...
www.motortrend.com
November 30, 2024 at 5:59 AM
That’s misinformation. The cost-benefit analysis in that infamous memo you refer to “had nothing to do with Ford Pinto, or even with fires in rear-end collisions, and the values assigned to death and injury were calculated by NHTSA, not Ford.”
Source: www.motortrend.com/features/for...
Source: www.motortrend.com/features/for...