Bias
Against Tesla in Full View
(if you know something about Tesla)
Notice, it says "the
best".
And notice it's the mainstream media... CBS in this case.
In this entire article, Tesla was mentioned nowhere. Not in any of the car categories that their cars are clearly in. Not a peep. Who did get mentioned? Car companies who advertise on CBS. And if you're thinking, "Well, that's understandable" you'd be playing right into their hands. Because it's not okay to write news articles that misrepresent reality. It's not okay to misinform the general public. And it's not an exercise of their free speech rights. In fact, it should be illegal to lie by ommision, which is what they did. And legally, Tesla could sue NBC for publishing this, but they won't. It's a waste of their time and money... money that could be better spent on improving their cars, increasing production, and keeping the price of those cars as low as possible so the most people can afford to buy them.
And how is it known that, objectifvely speaking, the Tesla vehicles should have been featured in that article? Simple. Unbiased sources of information... the information that the writer of that article should have considered. But today, most reporters write what their editors want them to write, assuming they want to keep their jobs.
The lesson? Don't trust mainstream news media (for anything but the weather and sports).
Original article here.
Other
ways that articles biased
against Tesla give misinformation
• When comparing a Tesla to an EV from another manufacturer, an article will use WLTP rated range for the non-Tesla EV, and will compare that to the EPA rated range for the Tesla. EPA mileage ratings are always lower than WLTP, which is the European rating system. So in reality, the Tesla that's being compared could actually have a better range than the non-Tesla EV, but the article will make it look like it's the opposite. So this non-apples-to-apples way of comparing two cars is deception used to put Teslas in a bad light. This should be illegal, but it's not.
• Lies. Articles have said that Teslas don't have certain features when they do, or that certain features operate in an unsafe way when they don't. How about an article that says that no Teslas can tow. It's a lie. The Model X has an optional tow package and can tow 3500 pounds. This isn't even stretching the truth, it is just plain lying. How about an article that says that Teslas depreciate at higher rates than other EVs. Again, a lie. Why do they do this? Could it be that these media outlets receive advertising dollars from Tesla's competitors and receive no ad revenue from Tesla?
Reuters
attempts to deceive the public
about Tesla, and fails
Reuters is one of the largest news agencies in the world, so you'd think they could get some facts right. So if they don't, it's not because they can't. They tweeted this...
Then Twitter users used the new "Community Notes" feature of Twitter to add some context under the Reuters tweet...
Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, then tweeted this...
Why "deceptive"? Because Telsa didn't miss delivery estimates, they actually surpassed them. And the price cuts they made weren't made to "lure buyers", they were made because their costs came down, and they pass those savings along to the customer. But because of lower prices, sales did increase some, so there was no "fail" for two reasons.
How did Reuters respond after that Community Note was added, and after hundreds of pro Tesla Youtubers made videos spreading the word of their deceit? They deleted their tweet. They didn't defend the info they tweeted, they deleted it. I guess they weren't expecting such a backlash (and they didn't know about the new "We're calling BS on that tweet" feature of Twitter, thanks to Elon Musk buying Twitter and creating that feature).
Then, after Reuters got tons of crap dumped on them for deleting the tweet instead of correcting it, they tweeted a correction of sorts...
Of course they had to still try and say something derogatory about Tesla, so they said, "after price cuts", implying that without those price cuts, Tesla would not have met Wall Street's expectations... which is still BS. But don't worry, videos will be made about this too. And Reuters took the opportunity to lie some more, this time about, "We are deleting that tweet". No, they had already deleted that tweet. Wow! They lie with such ease. Still wanna trust mainstream media?
Another example
But what the media fails to mention is that the brake part that failed is made by Bendix Brakes, and lots of truck manufacturers got this part and had recalls because the part is defective. Peterbilt, Thomas Built, Daimler Trucks, and Kenworth all had recalls of tens of thousands of trucks, but the media doesn't make any mention of this, and Tesla's 100 trucks being recalled makes National news. Why? Because it's an opportunity to say something negative about Tesla. So they make it sound like it's Tesla's fault, and they are careful not to mention that this recall has affected all truck manufacturers, and that 99.999 percent of the recalled trucks are for trucks other than Tesla's. Seems like biased reporting to me.
More
mainstream finance media
misrepresenting Tesla
(on behalf on their advertisers)
Notice, above it says "Tesla Earnings Per Share Misses". But it wasn't a "miss". Tesla had announced at the start of the quarter that they were shutting down assembly lines at some of their factories to do upgrades and retooling, and because of this, the quarter's earnings would be lower than normal. And that's what happened. So how can it be a "miss"? It wasn't. But saying it was hurts Tesla, and that's CNBC's unwritten mission (and that's why some people refer to CNBC as "CNBS".
And MSNBC gets in on the Elon Musk bashing too
MSNBC: Elon Musk said, 'So be it' if tweeting conspiracies, extremism loses him money.
But Elon Musk didn't say that. They are misquoting and misrepresenting him. What he said was that if his tweets end up losing him some money, "so be it". He has the same freedom of speech rights that everyone else has. So where did MSNBC get the 'Elon admits he tweets conspiracies' inference from? They made it up. Notice, the only thing they quoted him saying was the "so be it" part. And now I'm saying that if someone doesn't like something Elon said, and they decide not to buy a Tesla car because he's CEO of Tesla, then that's their right... and their loss (he makes the world's safest cars). How about looking at things on balance, all things considered. And when you look at Elon Musk in that light, his caring about the environment and about people in general says it all.
And another attempt to dump on EVs
Important Note: Number
of EVs in this parking deck collapse = zero
Important Note: An EV doesn't weigh that much more than a car with an
engine
And
the much trusted CNN and
Bloomberg News does it too!
(Which means they also shouldn't be trusted)
What these reports
fail to mention is that it's not a physical recall. The
(minor) issue was fixed in a day via an Over-the-Air software update
from Tesla. No car had to visit a service center; Tesla didn't have
to "take back" anything. (So is it really a "recall"?)
And by-the-way, no other vehicle made today can do that, but somehow
that's not newsworthy. So another example of the media
taking the opportunity to say something negative about Tesla, and misinforming
the public in the process. More of a reason to buy a Tesla in my opinion.
...And so does the Washington Post...
So this begs the question: What "evidence" suggested that FSD was engaged? Turns out, none. But that doesn't stop newspapers or any media from making stuff up. And does the article mention that the driver had a blood alcohol level that was three times the legal limit? Does the article mention that back then FSD was still in "beta", meaning anyone using it was informed to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road because the software was not finished yet? So if when running the software, there is an accident, it is ultimately the fault of the driver for not paying attention (unless the accident was caused by another vehicle). But the media's agenda to harm Tesla and Elon Musk causes them to do irresponsible reporting. Other media outlets left out the words "may be" and insinuated that Tesla's FSD software was the cause of the accident, even though there was no evidence it was engaged at the time. And then we discover that it had never even been uploaded to the car.
And so does the Wall Street Journal...
You
wouldn't think the Wall Street Journal would stoop so low, but
for clicks, the WSJ would be as clickbaity as The New York Post
or any greedy Youtuber. There is no more professional journalism left.
The fact that it was a Tesla that the women died in was irrelevant to
the story. But "Tesla" gets clicks/views, and the Federal
govt, and WSJ advertisers hate Tesla, so any opportunity to impugn Tesla
is jumped at, and that's why "Tesla" is in the headlines of
a negative story like this.
A billionaire
drove her Tesla Model X into a pond on her property (shifted into Reverse
instead of into Drive), and all her windows were up, and the car sank,
and people (friends, neighbors) showed up and couldn't break a window
from the outside (under water), and she drowned. A tragedy yes, but
Tesla's fault? No. But somehow, this will, for some, become another
reason not to buy a Tesla.
And we can't leave out Yahoo Finance and J.D. Power who do their part to try and discredit Tesla
The
latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey is very disparaging to all
EVs (although some do deserve it), but it lumps Tesla in with all EVs
when talking about public charging (where Tesla gets super high marks),
and with service visits (where Tesla also gets high marks), and with
customer satisfaction (saying that 49% of EV owners will be going back
to a gas-powered car, yet polls of Tesla EV owners have 97+% saying
they will buy another Tesla. Hmmm). In fact, about half of those who
bought crappy EVs are disappointed with service, quality, and public
charging, but the majority of Tesla owners are very pleased with their
purchase. I wonder if there are any powerful industries or organizations
that can influence publications to misrepresent EVs in their surveys
or influence media to skew survey results?
So how was J.D. Power able to give Tesla such low marks for "customer
satisfaction"? Well, J.D. Power counts all complaints,
even such as, "I can't figure out how to adjust my side view mirrors".
That complaint and "I've had my EV in for service six times for
the same issue" should be in two different categories, and yet
they're not. EVs are more software controlled than gasoline-powered
cars, and therefore there can be more options and settings available
because they can be done via on-screen software as opposed to tons of
physical knobs and buttons. And this is a good thing for those who like
to be able customize their car's operation. So just as with a first-time
smartphone or laptop, there's a learning curve, and those new owners
who can't be bothered with that end up with lots of complaints, and
those with complaints tend to complain. And when they do it with a J.D.
Power survey, readers of that survey get a skewed perspective. And the
media who have a bias against EVs or Tesla will report on that survey
and give no context where context is due. And by-the-way, the answer
to that issue of how to adjust the side view mirrors would be, "Read
the owners manual"... it's available for viewing on the EV's large
center screen... at least on a Tesla (other EVs have smaller screens).
And let's not forget J.D. Power's conflict-of-interest. If a car company
wants to use J.D. Power's prestigious name in their car ad (because
their car got a good review), they must pay J.D. Power money (licensing
fee). Tesla doesn't do any media advertising, so J.D. gets no money
from Tesla. Do they give Tesla an undeserved low rating as an incentive
to Tesla to give them money? Well, other publications seem to do this
(cough Consumer Reports).
Bottom line: If you want the real scoop on an EV, ask the owners, but
take their negative comments with a grain of salt if it appears their
complaints are unjustified because they can't bring themselves to read
the owners manual.
Even individuals dump on Tesla
#1 This tweet was a lie. The vehicle on fire was a truck that was carrying high pressure canisters. And this is just one of many such false tweets meant to discredit Tesla or EVs.
#2
Late last week it was announced the NHTSA had received a petition requesting
an investigation into ‘unintended acceleration’ in Tesla vehicles.
It was later discovered that the petition was filed by Brian Sparks,
someone who is a Tesla stock short-seller, and who has a vested interest
in the stock price going down.
Today Tesla officially responded to the petition filed with the NHTSA
last week, claiming that there is no such thing as unintended acceleration,
and the claims made by Sparks are without merit.
Hopefully once the dust settles and the truth is revealed, appropriate
action will be taken against Sparks for filing a false petition with
the intention of monetary gain (stock goes down, and he, as a short-seller,
profits from the lower stock price).