I hear you. Your response shows why I probably should not have posted my summary, because it only seems to have made matters worse. My biases, my interpretation of the conversation, and my opinions as to what is happening are all that: mine. In a hasty post I bring yet another layer of inaccuracy to the picture.
No way am I putting "all the responsibility on *us* to make this 'right'". Not at all. I put the responsibility on the news organization. It's their story, they reported it, they edited it, including cutting out whatever they cut out, they picked the headline, and they published what they published. They own it. I just don't think solely attacking reporters solves much or moves the ball closer to the goal line. To improve EV coverage I suspect ultimately requires figuring out why the people in editorial/publishing make the decisions they make and then figuring out a way to help them make better decisions about how they cover EVs.
i think it was excellent effort to go back and track the writer down and try to get to the bottom of it and explore some common ground. that should not be overlooked, and thank you!
i agree there’s many cases where one single person is not to blame. it’s the system, the organization, the structure of some media outlets, and the business model. so somewhere in the middle is where i sit. i admire a real journalist. i’ll admit i was tricked into believing there was a lot less of those until i read your comments and realized it’s the system they’re stuck in that has become increasingly sucky due to the way power and $ control the organizations. but where is a pissed off, underutilized, talented journalist going to go if stuck in that situation? it’s either provide for yourself or you family until you can find something better with more journalistic freedom, or starve? not much choice there. we don’t all have the luxury of being able to exercise every righteous inclination at will.. i found a lot of good points made from the OP and the responses.
—————-
that said, sentiment in tesla coverage varies by piece topic and organizational intent of providing that content in the first place.
there’s pro-green (mostly pro-tesla) outlets...
these are more than offset by the “generally benevolent” media actors, who couldn’t care less. maybe they’re mentioning tesla to get a quick hit of attention or because a particular story became viral. but it’s not really great or horrible, most non-informative, and clearly they’re just capitalizing on tesla being a hotly debated topic. no value added.
but the last type of tesla’s news actors are more deliberate, premeditated, and harmful.
the smear and the hit pieces to manipulate the outcome of tesla or tsla.
there’s a clear difference. whether it be single person, whole organizations, system failure., whatever you want to point the finger at per piece of content
it’s clear, apparent, and getting stronger at each critical stage of tesla growth. also undeniable.
it may not be the majority of total news coverage but it’s sure the loudest, and that compounds the problem. ignoring it also strengthens its impact.
