At the same time the speed of the internet prohibits fact checking and proper research - thus most media has a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.
I take issue with that overgeneralization.
Speed indeed increases the probability of mistakes, but mistakes can be fixed: online articles are far easier to edit after they get published than paper articles!
Remaining factual is also exceedingly easy if a journalist doesn't
intentionally lie or mislead about Tesla: the most damaging 2018 articles about Tesla were carefully engineered hit pieces where the authors knew
exactly what they were doing.
David Gelles of the New York Times even gleefully tweeted his joy about seeing $TSLA crash after his "interview" with Elon Musk:
Twitter
"Tesla
$TSLA stock now down close to 4 percent in pre market trading. Wonder why?"
There was also the recent incident where CBS's "60 Minutes" edited the interview with Elon in bad faith, with a clear intent to stir up controversy between Elon and the Tesla board and Elon and the SEC ... We only learned about this because Tesla did a full recording of the interview - otherwise it would be the usual 'he said she said' controversy.
These weren't just third tier business rags, the NYT and CBS are the supposed pinnacles of respectable journalism...
What we are seeing in the media, especially when it comes to Tesla reporting, is conscious bad faith and blatant bias. No, it's not blatant bias, but
BLATANT bias.
The reasons for it are complex, the solution to it will take time, but I'm pretty certain that the solution doesn't include: "not calling out journalists when they write damaging bullshit*t, because it might increase their resentment against the Tesla community".
Happy New 2019 to everyone!