No, Elon tweeting a question is not grounds for libel. Nor is asking a question grounds for slander.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
FirebirdAlpha
Member
I hope I'm not alone in feeling that Elon's tweets are just absurd. He's CEO of a 60B company - why is he picking fights with the media right now? Shouldn't he be recruiting a new manufacturing lead? Or a new chief accounting officer? Or a new head-of-sales? Or maybe he should be raising money?
Linette Lopez is a professional journalist with a degree from a prestigious journalism program who's been working for Business Insider for 7 years. Her reporting has been cited in Congressional Reports.
Accusing journalists of bribing sources is Trump-level b.s. And that's what this is: a baseless accusation (and letting him hide under the "it's just a question" line is just stupid).
It's one thing to point out negative media coverage. It's another thing to start attacking journalists.
Linette Lopez is a professional journalist with a degree from a prestigious journalism program who's been working for Business Insider for 7 years. Her reporting has been cited in Congressional Reports.
Accusing journalists of bribing sources is Trump-level b.s. And that's what this is: a baseless accusation (and letting him hide under the "it's just a question" line is just stupid).
It's one thing to point out negative media coverage. It's another thing to start attacking journalists.
Tell that the ex-Tesla employee accusing her of paying for proprietary information..
In CNBC's recent bottom of the hour news segment was a report of a fiery car crash. In the written headline and spoken commentary no mention was made of the brand of the car. It must not have been a Tesla.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
ValueAnalyst on Twitter
@tsrandall just revised his Weekly Model 3 Production Rate forecast to more than 5,000 for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th weeks of July. This forecast seems reasonable to me, and if @tsrandall is correct, the Model 3 production rate is more sustainable than many think. $TSLA
@tsrandall just revised his Weekly Model 3 Production Rate forecast to more than 5,000 for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th weeks of July. This forecast seems reasonable to me, and if @tsrandall is correct, the Model 3 production rate is more sustainable than many think. $TSLA
People with a reputation and integrity can lose it in an instant, especially when money is involved. Just because she has a history and outward appearance of being whiter than white doesn't mean she (still) is.
FirebirdAlpha
Member
Shouldn't Linette be innocent until proven guilty?
So far, I only see:
If Elon continues down this path of attacking journalists, it will destroy his brand.
Elon can shut them all up just by executing. And that's where his attention should be completely focused.
This quarter is do-or-die for Tesla. If they can't turn a profit, nothing else will matter.
And "negative media coverage" isn't going to impact their ability to turn a profit.
So far, I only see:
- Tripp, a dubious and legally screwed guy, accusing her of offering payment with no hard evidence that she ever did
- Shouldn't there be an email? A recording? Something that shows compensation was expected?
- Linette's previous negative coverage
If Elon continues down this path of attacking journalists, it will destroy his brand.
Elon can shut them all up just by executing. And that's where his attention should be completely focused.
This quarter is do-or-die for Tesla. If they can't turn a profit, nothing else will matter.
And "negative media coverage" isn't going to impact their ability to turn a profit.
SebastianR
Active Member
Interesting thread over on Reddit: r/teslamotors - Elon to Finance correspondent : “An ex-Tesla employee just went on record formally claiming you bribed him & he sent you valuable Tesla IP in exchange. Is this true?”
A (self-proclaimed - folks this is the internet, so be vigilant!) lawyer, claims this kind of tweet to be a smart move: if the journalist is not replying this advances the chances in court. If the journalist is lying, even worse...
In the meantime he (might) get important evidence very early on.
But read for yourselves...
A (self-proclaimed - folks this is the internet, so be vigilant!) lawyer, claims this kind of tweet to be a smart move: if the journalist is not replying this advances the chances in court. If the journalist is lying, even worse...
In the meantime he (might) get important evidence very early on.
But read for yourselves...
Last edited:
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
He is executing. He is making cars. He has met the 5000 car target. He is also defending his company against what could end up being illegal activities and practises specifically designed to bring financial ruin to his company. Fairfax all over again. Perhaps the threat of litigation is the only way to stop all the FUD.
Dan
FirebirdAlpha
Member
On Twitter? With circumstantial evidence?
Is this really how you think the CEOs of 60B companies should act?
And therein lies your problem.
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
She is.
Musk asked her very clear questions, which she isn't answering (so far). He has not accused her.
Objection, speculation.
He can do more than one thing at a time.
True. Also irrelevant. He is being viciously attacked with ill-intent and he has the right to defend himself. This is his life's work.
Another definitive assertion with no support. An avalanche of falsehoods, systematically perpetrated, and widely disseminated with the participation of big media players who should know and do better can tarnish the public's view of the company with direct consequences to their bottom line, threatening their very existence.
I wonder where and when Tripp stated that Lopez paid him or promised to pay him. Did Tesla interview somebody who overheard Tripp stating this?
This guy seems like a whacko and a total loose cannon, so at a minimum it was an error in judgment by Lopez to use him as a source.
This guy seems like a whacko and a total loose cannon, so at a minimum it was an error in judgment by Lopez to use him as a source.
FirebirdAlpha
Member
The question "did you bribe a source" is insulting to every professional journalists.
I thought Tripp was a sabateur who's word was worth nothing?
Now Musk is acting like his testimony is credible?
Which is it?
I thought Tripp was a sabateur who's word was worth nothing?
Now Musk is acting like his testimony is credible?
Which is it?
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
Absolutely, when the continued existence of their company is threatened by concerted and deliberate malicious attacks.
Give it a rest.
bdy0627
Active Member
Someone strongly suggested to Elon that there are some indications that she may have been involved with bribing a Tesla employee and may even have been involved in insider trading activity. He asked her a really simple honest question. Obviously, if she is innocent, it's a pretty simple matter of responding with a "no." If she is not innocent then it is obviously much more complicated, and she should probably ignore Elon's question. Given her position in the media, I would think that she would embrace the opportunity he is giving her for an audience. If she responds with a "no," then he should leave it at that.
defending a brand / company from false and damaging reports is exactly how they should act
have you ever posted here under a different account name?
Wow you guys keep responding to trolls who are here to create chaos and earn something for each response.
Do you also give out money to panhandlers?
Best to walk on by and pretend they don't exist.
Give to one and there's a chance you'll be hounded by all of them.
Do you also give out money to panhandlers?
Best to walk on by and pretend they don't exist.
Give to one and there's a chance you'll be hounded by all of them.
FirebirdAlpha
Member
No, he asked her an insulting question that she has no obligation to answer.
SebastianR
Active Member
I have the suspicion you are not really interested in an honest discussion. But here is my attempt argue straight:
What better thing that to say "Are you f...ing out of your mind? How dare you even suggest? Of course I didn't bribe him! I have journalistic standards!" -- then proceed to make another really long article out of this short intermezzo and portray E.M. as the media hating billionaire who is paranoid and going after good journalists.
So why is this not happening? Would that not be a slam-dunk? We might only speculate.
And then there is this from the Reddit thread I linked:
California CACI Jury Instruction Number 213:
213.Adoptive Admissions You have heard evidence that [name of declarant] made the following statement: [describe statement]. You may consider that statement as evidence against [name of party against whom statement was offered] only if you find that all of the following conditions are true: 1. The statement was made to [name of party against whom statement was offered] or made in [his/her] presence; 2. [Name of party against whom statement was offered] heard and understood the statement; 3. [Name of party against whom statement was offered] would, under all the circumstances, naturally have denied the statement if [he/ she] thought it was not true; 3. AND 4. [Name of party against whom statement was offered] could have denied it but did not. If you decide that any of these conditions are not true, you must not consider for any purpose either the statement or [name of party against whom statement was offered]’s response. [You must not consider this evidence against any other party.]
So....? I for one am looking forward to the journalist's confirmation that of course journalistic standards apply even at Business Insider /s
What better thing that to say "Are you f...ing out of your mind? How dare you even suggest? Of course I didn't bribe him! I have journalistic standards!" -- then proceed to make another really long article out of this short intermezzo and portray E.M. as the media hating billionaire who is paranoid and going after good journalists.
So why is this not happening? Would that not be a slam-dunk? We might only speculate.
And then there is this from the Reddit thread I linked:
California CACI Jury Instruction Number 213:
213.Adoptive Admissions You have heard evidence that [name of declarant] made the following statement: [describe statement]. You may consider that statement as evidence against [name of party against whom statement was offered] only if you find that all of the following conditions are true: 1. The statement was made to [name of party against whom statement was offered] or made in [his/her] presence; 2. [Name of party against whom statement was offered] heard and understood the statement; 3. [Name of party against whom statement was offered] would, under all the circumstances, naturally have denied the statement if [he/ she] thought it was not true; 3. AND 4. [Name of party against whom statement was offered] could have denied it but did not. If you decide that any of these conditions are not true, you must not consider for any purpose either the statement or [name of party against whom statement was offered]’s response. [You must not consider this evidence against any other party.]
So....? I for one am looking forward to the journalist's confirmation that of course journalistic standards apply even at Business Insider /s
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
