This article looks accurate, inclusive, balanced and broad to me. Good article to share to introduce the world of EV, Tesla, and Elon. Provides a fairly complete list of negatives of Elon and Musk without the FUD.
Mercedes-Benz is finally taking on Tesla. It probably won’t work.
It was "accurate, inclusive, balanced", as far as mainstream press articles go. But they didn't omit the FUD. I forget if they used "unhinged" to describe Musk, but they definitely said "erratic". This is a widespread perception to be sure, but it is based on innuendo, cherry picking and misleading statements/representations.
I mean, I get it that those representing status quo were upset by Musk's brushing off the repetitious, FUD-aligned questioning in the call, but that does not make him erratic. There's BuzzFeed's unsubstantiated claims that are trumpeted everywhere as fact -- but even if it is true that *still* doesn't make him erratic, only consistent and persistent in his portrayal of Unswerth.
I also understand that they want to paint him in a negative light, but saying that he "reneged" on going private is a flat out lie, no getting around it.
And then you get all the cozying up to the established interests. Despite the parade of failures, they paint a picture of inevitability that the big boy car manufacturers will eventually "get it" and make a competitive EV while Tesla simply cannot scale.
So, no, it isn't as FUD ridden as the NYT and in comparison might seem balanced -- but it is just a more sophisticated FUD article that omits the grandiose claims of Tesla going immediately bankrupt while maintaining that their failure is inevitable. The message is clear: do not buy Tesla (no support from a failed company) and do not buy $TSLA (stock will have no value after the bankruptcy).
[edited to add: yes, I missed including they used the exaggerated/puffed-up stats for the EQC while omitting its numerous shortcomings. Its part of the whole exaggerate what the traditional car companies can do when it comes to EVs. This was just another negative piece propagating FUD more by assumption than explicit statement -- that last being about the only way in which it differs from the run-of-the-mill pieces.]