PS - this is why the likes of Musk and Trump are so utterly petrified by Reuters, AP etc, to the extent he'll have them banned from the press pool at the White House (TASS though, the Russians? Come right in), and Musk will do his Beavis and Butthead style memes. They're petrified because they report facts, and facts are very, very inconvenient to Musk and Trump trying to control the narrative.
The problem here is that Mainstream Media have opinions (usually based on verifiable facts) that are not in line with Os' view of the world, so Mainstream Media must be wrong, and almost certainly controlled by evil geniuses whose sole desire is to control everything. So, instead, Os seeks out views that he agrees with, and holds them up as proof that he is right. Always. Never wrong, and besides I had my fingers crossed, so that doesn't count.
We will disagree here (obviously ) but I have seen enough evidence of propaganda from AP and Reuters that I don’t necessarily think they deserve their access. In my opinion those institutions have an incredible anti-right bias. I think there is plenty of evidence for this if you care to look. My opinion is that while Trump & Musk are doing and saying some extreme stuff that I disagree with, in general the media has been ridiculously biased for a long time. So the only option now is to call out the biases. You guys on here mostly ignore the biases in one direction and only call them out when it suits you. You ignored all the smears against Trump and Elon that were untrue and the censorship of the right over the years, so now reaping what was sewn
This just goes to show, without any question, that you have no idea what you’re talking about (in case anyone was in any doubt), particularly regarding AP and Reuters. You can call it us disagreeing if you like, but it’s actually speculation (driven by believing the likes of Musk and the Twitter ‘truthers’) vs knowledge (actually living it every day for the past however many years and knowing how much what you’re saying is completely incorrect). I’m sure you can work out which of us is which. PS - “I don’t necessarily think they deserve their access” is a comment that I didn’t even think you would make, no matter how far gone you are. That’s a proper wow.
Tesla was incorporated (as Tesla Motors) on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California. The founders were influenced to start the company after General Motors recalled all its EV1 electric cars in 2003 and then destroyed them, and seeing the higher fuel efficiency of battery-electric cars as an opportunity to break the usual correlation between high performance and low fuel economy in automobiles. The AC Propulsion tzero also inspired the company's first vehicle, the Roadster. Eberhard said he wanted to build "a car manufacturer that is also a technology company", with its core technologies as "the battery, the computer software, and the proprietary motor". Ian Wright was the third employee, joining a few months later. The three went looking for venture capital (VC) funding in January 2004 and connected with Elon Musk, who contributed US$6.5 million of the initial (Series A) US$7.5 million round of investment in February 2004 and became chairman of the board of directors.
So, do you think someone who is supposed to be helping America, not just Republicans, to improve government should be using that kind of terminology and still expect to respected? I think it is shockingly poor behaviour, and I cannot see how you can objectively defend it. Would you agree with someone who walked up to a young mum and said: You dropped your son's blanket, you ****ing whore? Because agreeing with the ideas doesn't justify the way he says things.
He could never find one thing they had reported that was not true. Or at least thought to be true at the time. Not one.
He might be able to, in their history. But it would be a very unusual thing, and it would have been corrected immediately. I can find something that Musk/Trump say EVERY SINGLE DAY which is a lie, and a known lie, and being used specifically to influence and control, and when called out never gets corrected. But yeah, they’re the ones we should believe
I was going to post something similar and add:- Tesla has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism, stemming from allegations of multiple cases of whistle blower retaliation, worker rights violations such as sexual harassment and anti-union activities, safety defects leading to dozens of recalls, the lack of a public relations department, and controversial statements from Musk including overpromising on the company's driving assist technology and product release timelines. Opponents of Musk have launched the "Tesla Takedown" campaign in response to the views of Musk and his role in Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
A “viable” company. People like to use this as some sort of weird “gotcha” but without Elon musk taking an absurd risk, putting everything on the line, Tesla wouldn’t exist.
Musk only holds around 13% of the Tesla shares and is now getting some heat from other shareholders who, from what I have seen from American political commentators, now want him to resign as CEO so they can install someone who will be more focused on the brand and so they can try to reduce the damage he is doing to their investment. I don’t think they will be able to repair the damage whilst Musk remains the majority shareholder, tbh.
Musk is legally a co-founder of Tesla (see https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/) and, for me, joining six months after the company started and providing the vast majority of the investment means that's fair enough. But really, why does anyone care? I don't know what will happen with him and Tesla because there's an obvious problem in that the people you'd think would be most likely to buy Teslas or EVs in general are also the people most likely to hate his political actions. We shall see.
They only care because they’ve been programmed to use that argument to negate his achievements. Same as the rest of the woke left
Do you think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did multiple “independent” , “trustworthy” papers disseminate lies around that? How do you explain the narrative control around that huge lie?
A thought. The Alt-right used language to make the term "woke" socially suspicious to the extent that newspaper headlines can moan about "woke" without a professional journalist asking "so you'd prefer us to be asleep then?" We could defang the Alt-right's propaganda machine by using the same technique and start referring to social media as "my mate down the pub said..." until it seeps into the public consciousness that social media should given the same credence as that weird nutter down the pub that thinks that Elvis stopped an alien invasion last Thursday and we should triple VAT on the sales of goldfish in his honour.
The newspapers report what they are told. The newspapers did not say ‘there are weapons of mass destruction’. They said: Blair says there are WMDs. Which was true. He did say it. And by the way, Putin sent ‘intelligence’ confirming the WMDs. Because he was playing is back then too.
Exactly. Here’s something that will explain things a bit more though, and includes some criticism of journalists not pushing back a bit more on that information at the time. It’s the guy that reported on it for Reuters. It doesn’t absolve the media, and it talks of lessons learned, but it also gives you some idea of how agencies like Reuters work, and their pursuit of truth. It’s not the best example of that, but it’s an example to show Os that even in the worst version he can find to use, he’s still wrong. https://ralphbuncheinstitute.org/20...ies-and-media-reporting-in-the-2003-iraq-war/
