Why sit down with them and not have a recording?
Why agree to sit down with people he knows are lying creeps and not cover himself?
It is not as if he is accustomed to fair treatment.
Makes no sense.
Unless he wanted this reaction.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tomorrow at 1PM PDT we will be discussing the latest Tesla Shareholder Meeting on the TMC Podcast. You can watch live on YouTube or X and participate in the chat.
- Status
Why sit down with them and not have a recording?
Why agree to sit down with people he knows are lying creeps and not cover himself?
It is not as if he is accustomed to fair treatment.
Makes no sense.
Unless he wanted this reaction.
Because people aren’t perfect. Read posts above to understand why Elon thought this particular NYT reporter was going to play it straight. Elon is better off doing long form YouTube videos with YouTube personalities rather than written articles. Frankly, that’s where the audience is these days anyways, print media is dieing
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Probably not if the article is truthful - but there's the rub: there's serious grounds to believe that the article was not truthful and tried to deceive investors.
If the article's main author, any family members, friends or acquaintances held a short position in $TSLA (or a substantial long position in Tesla competitors), then that fact would further deepen the suspicion of impropriety: that the negative tone and deceptive content of the article and its negative effect on the share price was not accidental but very much intended.
Feel free to disagree. Those hurt me much less than a 10% stock decline.
An intelligent rebuttal would be appreciated however.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The lead New York Times author of the article (David Gelles) wasn't a known Tesla FUDster - in fact his last article that mentioned Tesla (back in 2017) mentioned Tesla in a factual (and positive) fashion.
So I can see why Elon took the interview (the NYT has a wide audience) - instead he was trapped viciously.
If I was Elon I'd be fuming - I'm glad he is not me and that he has not reacted to the interview on Twitter so far. He should ignore it - Tesla results will speak for themselves.
Would it have been legal for Elon to record the phone interview? Probably not if he called from California...
I keep telling you all that the media sucks and that NYT is the yellowest of rags, mostly because they claim to be the holiest. Yet the NYT has no shortage of kooiaid drinkers who keep hailing the 'paper of record' and all their Pulitzer prizes lol. Goddamn, WSJ might be more objective on Tesla at this point.
NYT just keeps proving me right on a daily basis. Yellow and cherry picked journalism at its best. All hail NYT.
NYT just keeps proving me right on a daily basis. Yellow and cherry picked journalism at its best. All hail NYT.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I see where you are coming from, and wrote rebuttals in other contexts, a (very brief) summary:
- NYT article: There's multiple (3-4) data points that strongly suggest that the NYT article was written in bad faith and is materially misleading by using widely out of context quotes from a much longer interview, and was perhaps written with the primary intent to manipulate the market. Furthermore there's reason to believe that Elon was essentially trapped by a NYT journalist who wasn't a known Tesla FUDster before. (I'm pretty certain about this interpretation.)
- Elon's $420 tweet: There's multiple data points that suggest that the 'going private' communication was prepared well in advance (with legal sign-off), and the $420 number and tweet was rushed due to the Saudi 5% investment news. My reading is that Elon's primary intention was prevent an almost-hostile takeover or overly dominant player within Tesla. (I'm less certain about this interpretation.)
Please read this thread that Bonnie Bonnie Norman on Twitter recommended:
https://twitter.com/martinengwicht/status/1030854615812763648
Skewers Sordid & Yeller (sp?) pretty good with deconstructive analysis.
Musk wrote a tweet a month two ago that indeed he would be interested in good COO and is open to propositions.
They just copy pasted it.
Besides mentioning of a slipping drug and the he made his tweet "in the car" and mentioning where exactly he was riding(which is relevant but not for the reasons NYT think), the whole article is just rehashing of other hit pieces.
The structure of this article is identical to the previous "interview" hit piece from Bloomberg. I will be surprised if the action does not originate from the one source.
I repeat again, everybody can see how "desperate" Musk is in the interview with one big youtuber he made 15 of august.
Driver Dave
Member
Grabbed this share from comment but not positive it goes there. Just to article.
Elon Musk Details ‘Excruciating’ Personal Toll of Tesla Turmoil
What I don't understand is the whole volatility. On the basis of one article someone or a couple of investors decides to sell a lot of shares to bring the price down more than 8%. If it only takes one article to to lose your confidence in the company, why were these investors having TSLA in the first place?
The other side is also true when there is one positive line. People are scrambling to buy stock. Why? Just one positive news article and the same guys are celebrating again?
Who are these investors who cause the huge swings, they must be some kind of big players.
The other side is also true when there is one positive line. People are scrambling to buy stock. Why? Just one positive news article and the same guys are celebrating again?
Who are these investors who cause the huge swings, they must be some kind of big players.
I don’t think Elon intentionally meant to hurt his shareholders and by extension his employees.
Intended or not, the result is still the same.
Someone else present for Elon would help him figure out
1.) Intentions to hurt or help Elon
2.) Insist editorial review for publication
3.) Change direction or end conversation if needed.
If Elon had an approver for tweets, all of them would have went through... except for
420 - funding secured
Pedo guy
He can talk about conquering traffic all day long and he nerdy. The above? Not so much.
on this, we have to look at it from outside our own point of view. we know so many more details than most, so when a scathing article comes out it infuriates us because we usually can tell/know the difference between the reality and what was written.
the avg reader doesn’t know this. people close to me that recently kinda follow tesla because of me always blabbing about it, are left speechless by the past week and a half. they only know what they see, which doesn’t look good. these haters tactics are an effort to take advantage of em’s methods and expose him in a manner that suits them.
if you think there isn’t strategy behind some of these attacks, you’re naive. the strategy is for them to become the focus. apparently, he says he has been focusing on them (i can’t believe it’s working, or is he just making it seem that way, i dunno).
we (tmc and heavy followers) mostly look past all this stuff (maybe we complain a bit, and some of our reactions are off color, misguided, unwarranted).
the avg person sees this as he’s come off the rails. this matters. they are future customers, future supporters. remember he’s only garnered support from very few %age of people thus far. the ‘masses’ either don’t know or don’t care yet.
their strategy of making him look like an a-hole is so that he never gains 20, 30, 40 % of public support. taking him off his game, it’s a self fulfilling strategy.
then, they win!
he must know this. if he doesn’t know his, and is actually falling for it, that’s a problem. and maybe he needs someone around to gut check him once in a while. i don’t know, but i’m just saying.
he must try not to do anything that jeopardizes this so early in the mission. while millions of us support him, only a few hundred thousand have purchased products. that’s not enough in the long run. with the forces he’s going up against, he needs 10s upon 10s of millions of voices (of which millions may actually purchase products). i can’t even buy a tesla in CT yet, that’s ridiculous. there’s not enough voices to sway the st govt (we tried repeatedly and got smacked down). this is what i’m talking about. so it’s easy for tesla folk to tell me i’m an idiot, and elon is elon. ok fine, i know this (been following daily since 2011). but what we think, isn’t the problem right now. it’s continuing the grass roots and expanding support until we reach tipping point. and that’s what’s under fire right now, because that’s the next logical spot in the battle plan. they failed at spoiling S, X, and 3. so now it’s turn him on his supporters, or vice verse, or stifle any new support.
he must find a way to reconcile the fact that the media is going to amplify the hatred, but underneath that bullshit, many really love him. and the reason we love him is because of his forward thinking, ingenuity, zero BS tolerance, etc etc etc... can go on all day.
through the noise, his supporters are what matters. and the more he focuses supporters, the more supporters gained.
EM, don’t let them take you off your game, because they don’t really matter. their job is to fool us into thinking you’re something you’re not. your job is to do what you’ve always done. that makes us love you. and many more will once you shrug off the haters. they aren’t worth it. but help us increase our team, and we will mop the floor with them in the end!
I’m glad it’s out there and I agree. Anyone who doesn’t have a negative agenda would of reached the same conclusions.
Doesn’t change the critical judgment failure to dive headfirst into a shark tank when you already got bloodied by the SEC.
It makes me wonder Elon is truly surrounded by yes men. I hope this is not the case.
I mean if Elon delivered my Model 3 I would have asked him if he had 10 minutes. I would of inspected the car, tell him I loved him, and then lay into him for not having a team that protects him against his enemies.
Shorts are not that difficult as long as you execute.. so execute versus engage.
Last edited:
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
A striking illustration of how insidious the NYT reporting is in this article is how, despite the fact that I was very much on guard when I read it and I paid scrupulous attention, they still managed to plant something in my mind that I registered as fact, but is not.
Twice already on this forum, I said or implied that the NYT's sources included members of the board. I thought I read that in the article. However, I now searched for every occurrence of 'board' in the article and lo and behold, they didn't actually have any contact with anyone on the board! Please note how every single time they refer to board members, they craft the sentence such that the board reference comes first, and only at the end they add the '...according to people familiar with the matter' disclaimer. Because they always put that at the very end, and also because it's such a standard phrase, my brain simply skipped it. A lot of people skim and read just the beginnings of sentences. I expressly did not hurry, but even though I managed to catch it in most of those paragraphs I must have surely missed in others, because I was left with a clear impression that they actually talked to board members. Not just that, but I then went on and propagated that "fact" to others.
If you think these writers don't know what they're doing, think again. See for yourselves:
Twice already on this forum, I said or implied that the NYT's sources included members of the board. I thought I read that in the article. However, I now searched for every occurrence of 'board' in the article and lo and behold, they didn't actually have any contact with anyone on the board! Please note how every single time they refer to board members, they craft the sentence such that the board reference comes first, and only at the end they add the '...according to people familiar with the matter' disclaimer. Because they always put that at the very end, and also because it's such a standard phrase, my brain simply skipped it. A lot of people skim and read just the beginnings of sentences. I expressly did not hurry, but even though I managed to catch it in most of those paragraphs I must have surely missed in others, because I was left with a clear impression that they actually talked to board members. Not just that, but I then went on and propagated that "fact" to others.
If you think these writers don't know what they're doing, think again. See for yourselves:
The events set in motion by Mr. Musk’s tweet have ignited a federal investigation and have angered some board members, according to people familiar with the matter.
And some board members have expressed concern not only about Mr. Musk’s workload but also about his use of Ambien, two people familiar with the board said.
Board members, blindsided by the chief executive’s market-moving statement, were angry that they had not been briefed, two people familiar with the matter said.
Some board members, however, have recently told Mr. Musk that he should lay off Twitter and focus on making cars and launching rockets, according to people familiar with the matter.
Just days after the agency’s request for information, Tesla’s board and Mr. Musk received S.E.C. subpoenas, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Board members and Mr. Musk are preparing to meet with S.E.C. officials as soon as next week, the person said.
But this has worried some board members, who have noted that sometimes the drug does not put Mr. Musk to sleep but instead contributes to late-night Twitter sessions, according to a person familiar with the board’s thinking.
Some board members are also aware that Mr. Musk has on occasion used recreational drugs, according to people familiar with the matter.
Contrast this with the final manipulation that comes at the end, when the actual board statement provided to the paper by Tesla is introduced with this beautiful qualifier inserted prominently at the front:And some board members have expressed concern not only about Mr. Musk’s workload but also about his use of Ambien, two people familiar with the board said.
Board members, blindsided by the chief executive’s market-moving statement, were angry that they had not been briefed, two people familiar with the matter said.
Some board members, however, have recently told Mr. Musk that he should lay off Twitter and focus on making cars and launching rockets, according to people familiar with the matter.
Just days after the agency’s request for information, Tesla’s board and Mr. Musk received S.E.C. subpoenas, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Board members and Mr. Musk are preparing to meet with S.E.C. officials as soon as next week, the person said.
But this has worried some board members, who have noted that sometimes the drug does not put Mr. Musk to sleep but instead contributes to late-night Twitter sessions, according to a person familiar with the board’s thinking.
Some board members are also aware that Mr. Musk has on occasion used recreational drugs, according to people familiar with the matter.
In response to questions for this article, Tesla provided a statement that it attributed to its board, excluding Elon Musk. “There have been many false and irresponsible rumors in the press about the discussions of the Tesla board,” the statement said. “We would like to make clear that Elon’s commitment and dedication to Tesla is obvious. Over the past 15 years, Elon’s leadership of the Tesla team has caused Tesla to grow from a small start-up to having hundreds of thousands of cars on the road that customers love, employing tens of thousands of people around the world, and creating significant shareholder value in the process.”
Nevermind this qualifier is entirely unnecessary. Why not simply say "Tesla provided us with a statement from the board"? Do they really think there is an ever-so-slight possibility that Tesla PR made it up? Not really, but maybe you do after reading it.
Last edited:
I've been trying to file a complaint with the SEC about the David Gelles Tweet where he takes credit for tanking TSLA SP but their web site keeps giving me server errors (403). Has anyone been successful in doing this?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
