After a weekend of whoppers about X and fighting Mark Zuckerberg, the press should take a more skeptical approach
I know this won’t happen, but I really wish we could just all stop talking about him all together.
It’s a mixed blessing that he won’t stfu. Before he had a megaphone, everyone thought he was Tony Stark. Now almost everyone thinks he’s a fucking dork. While he still has his bootlickers, there are a lot less now.
Hey, dorks are nice people
Dorks are, but “fucking dorks” are not
I also wish that. I hate that all of his stupid controversies are actually just make him more “famous”. He’s the ultimate online troll that grew stronger every time we talked about him regardless if it’s bad or worse.
To a narcissist there’s no such thing as negative attention. All attention is good.
Can we cover him in cheese wheels like that poor Italian man?
deleted by creator
The media will cover him differently once Tesla full autopilot becomes available in about a year.
Thank god someone is saying it, it’s the same mistake they made with trump
This isn’t news. This is an opinion.
Right but it’s relevant to how news is portrayed and what kind of content we think should be posted here. I think it’s a great post to spark that discussion
Treating commentary (and analysis) on news as separate and apart from news is how we got the coverage of musk we get.
Always, without fail, it is someone who has never posted a single news article that pops in to insist something isn’t “news.”
Post something you consider news, then.
You are here:
They only “response” to their “It’s not news” according to this would be “nuh uh!”, which is less than helpful.
I say to post what they consider need instead because that adds more content to the site, instead of just adding pedantry.
If a person complaints about noice are you going to tell them to make more noice? Makes no sense.
Do you mean “noise”?
No, I’m talking about the swedish punk rock band.
That explains it.
Ideally, we’d stop caring about people because of the sole fact they have a lot of money.
Unfortunately, that’s gonna exclude a lot of money modern-day “journalism” probably relies on.
Well no, he actually is the public face for a few companies. He’s not just a rich dude.
But yeah the current coverage is teetering on celebrity gossip but then again his public antics can influence a bunch of companies.
I think in a lot of cases, it’s less about them having a lot of money and more about how they’re able to effect change using that money or the power/influence associated with that money. Unfortunately, this can often happen at a relatively large scale, like by upending a popular social media platform or disrupting the automobile industry (for good or ill) or discussing futuristic public transportation ideas to take the wind out of the sails of more realistic/attainable projects and efforts.
All things considered, I wouldn’t mind hearing less about these people - a lot less. We’re well into mud slinging territory and some of these dickheads absolutely thrive on that. I’m sure the worst of them feel egged on when the media talks about them so they say or do more crazy shit very publicly to draw attention from fanboys and detractors alike. Call it a vicious cycle… or a hyperloop or something.
I decided to stopped posting things about him after he made that laughable announcement that he’d pay the legal bills of anyone fired because of their tweets. He did it purely for attention, and I realized I don’t want to help give it to him anymore.
I made an exception for this article because it’s not about him, but about how writers can’t just keep uncritically covering every stupid thing he says.
fair enough and fwiw, that’s what i was kind of echoing. “we’re” in mud slinging territory as a culture, but journalists/opinion-piece-writers/whatever are massive drivers of it.
Ideally, we’d stop caring about people because of the sole fact they have a lot of money.
Well currently, we need to focus on them, but specifically on the exploitation that was required for them to make that money, and on the damage them hoarding so much of it does to the rest of us.
Then ideally we finally turn on them en masse and abolish the system that not only enables, but thrives on, and even requires inequality and resource disparity to exist. At that point we no longer have to worry about the disgusting and harmful worship of the super wealthy because there will be no super wealthy. Instead everyone will have their needs met.
Oh, you mean the media should stop polarizing him as either a Tony-Stark-like genius savior of humanity while ignoring his numerous failures, or a brain-dead embodiment of evil who can never succeed at anything while ignoring his numerous successes?
You mean he probably lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, right? Certainly you wouldn’t just be criticizing one portrayal without recognizing how equally pathetic the other is? I mean, if you did that, it would be blatantly showing your hand that you’re not trying to clear up lame propaganda, you’re just contributing a different flavor.
Could you list any of those successes that are actually his
Would SpaceX not count in that? I get that he, himself is not the guy who made the rocket, but without his money that first rocket and the COTS program would have never existed.
His only successes with SpaceX and Tesla are buying startups and then pumping them full of cash whilst adding aggressive goals. It’s really the various teams that were successful, not Musk. If you want to credit his success, that would be betting the farm on some decently cutting edge startups and then proceeding to win those bets investment-wise.
