Breitbart News Network featured a story this week on its website called “Elon Musk’s Tesla Stock Up $2 Billion Since Joining Trump’s Team.” The story argues that, as a result of recent Tesla stock increases, Musk owes allegiance to Donald Trump. Attention from the far-right Breitbart website, which is the most viewed U.S. conservative news, opinion, and commentary source in the U.S., comes at a time in which Elon Musk’s reputation has been questioned by his once-loyal following.
Why is the Breitbart story such bad timing for Musk?
Breitbart is known as the most significant misinformation site on the Internet. Privileging one set of representations over another, discourses like those typical within the Breitbart publication tend to claim the status of truth. Their discourses, which work as truth statements, make it difficult for many readers to identify how reality is shaped. Breitbart’s executive chairman, Steve Bannon, aligned the site so specifically toward a Trump vision of the world during the 2016 Presidential election that employees began to raise concerns about it being little more than a “fan club” for Trump.
Moreover, the right-wing outlet has been accused by some as being a hate site. Breitbart engages in coordinated plans to bring their particular brand of intolerance to the political realm in because their style of propaganda works well. Linked to relations of power, the Breitbart stories tend to be constructed and reinforced by those in professional positions like Bannon who hold a particular authority and, thus, create knowledge about certain subjects like climate change, health care, and trade.
In the article about Elon Musk this week, Breitbart referred to individuals who seek equality for all as “the left’s social justice warriors” and described Twitter reactions to Musk’s collaboration with Trump as “vicious colorful language that cannot be reported.” The implication here is that Musk followers are immoral, disreputable people whose language is so coarse that it is would clearly offend the enlightened Breitbart readership.
Yes, this was a week in which the Tesla Motors, Inc. CEO found himself defending his position on Trump’s executive order that limits immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Musk has become a target of malaise due to his role on Trump’s manufacturing council. Disgruntled fans tweeted about how Musk could design a Mars mission but fail to retract a “BS Muslim ban;” what ownership of the competitor’s Chevy Volt would be like; and, his position on AG Sally Yates’ dismissal over the immigration issue. Some tweets, on the other hand, also supported Musk and implored him “to make a positive impact.”
Breitbart recounted that Musk’s attendance on “an official White House committee” (i.e. the Strategic and Policy Forum) on January 27 generated controversy. Breitbart characterized the comments as “mournful,” which cast Musk as leader of a losing battle to limit anthropogenic climate change through decentralized energy, especially the remarkable Tesla electric vehicle line. Breitbart noted Musk’s reply, which included, “It’s getting me down. I’m just trying to make a positive contribution & hope good comes of it.” Interestingly, the publication allowed Musk’s empathy and altruism to shine through the otherwise negative narrative.
Breitbart also added in the article that, “when it comes to U.S. employment and manufacturing, Musk’s companies are near or at the top as the fastest-growing players.” It seems clear from this statement that the Trump administration recognizes the power that Elon Musk has to create U.S. jobs and further the country’s emergence from the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Breitbart’s care in recognizing Musk’s wherewithal suggests that the Trump administration is looking down the GNP road and wants to keep Musk close by, regardless of Musk’s opposite political beliefs and progressive values, just in case.
Musk’s use of Twitter to inform, educate, and empower
Twitter can be a site where democracy, messy as it can be, is at its best. Twitter’s multiple viewpoints allow for rich, if sometimes uncomfortable discourse. Musk understands this and engages in conversations with the public as a means of communication, education, and empowerment. For example, he wanted his followers to be intimately knowledgeable with the immigration order and to let him know “specific amendments,” which he would then bring to the advisory council to seek “consensus & present to President” Trump.
Please read immigration order. Lmk specific amendments. Will seek advisory council consensus & present to President. https://t.co/qLpbsP4lEk
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017
Indeed, Musk asked his followers to read “the source material” of the immigration ban; it is a way to infuse voices of reason and expertise rather than emotion and hyperbole into the conversation. That request, in turn, fostered a conversation about the importance of reading original documents and reports, rather than relying on tertiary sources for deconstruction and explanation. It was a lesson that many could have learned during the 2016 Presidential campaign, which was rife with fake news.
@JacobofAmber Yes, the order is still bad, but it is always important to read the source material
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 30, 2017
Rather than the “Trump / Musk charm offensive” that Breitbart suggests is the reason for Tesla’s rising stock prices, perhaps we should look to the Trump effect as just one of multiple reasons why Tesla is on the rise. The acquisition of Solar/City, the announcement of solar roof tiles, the 2017 production of the new Model 3, production at the Nevada Gigafactory, SpaceX series of successes… the list of recent accomplishments is quite long. Investors like to back a winner, and, even if Musk must hold his nose as he negotiates with Donald Trump and his advisers, the value of Tesla will continue to be robust.
It’s just not the White House that so many of us, Musk included, envisioned just a few months ago. And Breitbart’s entry to the field is scary enough for many of us to take notice. Be strong, Elon; you’re going to need tenacity to stay a step ahead. We know you’ll probably have to step up more than you originally anticipated when you agreed to serve. Thanks for taking on this huge responsibility on behalf of U.S. progressives.
Interested in solar? Get a solar cost estimate and find out how much a solar system would cost for your home or business.
Recommended for you
Top Rated Comments (view all)
Discuss: News
Log in with:
Or sign up with TESLARATI:
EXACTLY. That is why I raise this concern.
I do not dispute nor disagree with any of the conclusions-- I simply disagree with opinion/commentary being presented as FACTUAL NEWS. There is a big difference and if it can't be seen and understood by the author/editorial board/readers of Teslarati, then this site will become the opposite of Breitbart-- but in all the wrong ways.
We'll see if we can somehow start "tagging" opinion editorial as such when these are posted onto the main site. That said, the content would still fall under the broader "News" main category but tagged appropriately. That's a first step until we figure out a better way to disseminate content into the appropriate forum category.
You really feel comfortable anointing one person, one website, one philosophy, one school of political thought as "that which is the correct viewpoint" to the exclusion of all others? I'm not.
Legitimizing destructive viewpoints... the argument could be made that be linking to them and considering them relevant enough to devote an article (and headline!) to them and their name goes a long way toward lending them legitimacy. At the very least, you drive some traffic to their site and they make money on each click.
Furthermore, the bar has been set (by this article) that whatever Breitbart thinks about Elon is newsworthy.
What does that imply or suggest?
@Mark Schaffer I have never actually looked at Brietbart, for the same reason I don't go to Perez Hilton. Not news. But your indignation is exactly why this opinion piece has no place in the news section. If this was a news piece it would also comment on the fact that a because of participation in Trumps advisory group, a right wing supporting site has not criticized Tesla or any one of his businesses as a Ponzi scheme.
What I am no longer accepting, in any news source that I read, is the intentional omission of facts that may be uncomfortable to the authors opinion (whether arrived at objectively or not).
Here is what would have been a news piece: What is being reported in Brietbart (they think that Trump may get sway over Tesla due to the stock jump), why is Brietbart bad (given), why is Briebart article important (it is trusted source for the people who elected the President), why is this bad for Tesla/Musk (potential erosion of loyal supporters), why could this be good for Telsa/Musk (possible increased support of Congress, the Senate and Administration for clean energy programs that create US jobs), What we should look for going forward (speculation here is fine).
Just saying he facts you like, is not news. This is not the same thing as giving .2% of papers on global warming equal coverage - that is a false analogy.
I agree with Newscutter that this is taking Teslarati in a direction that is not helpful. The constant barrage of Right Wing Oil Supporters shorting the stock and pointing out only the tax incentives is offensive to me - as is this article, and should be to you... if you want news.
...however, this article is labeled as "News" and it goes against my journalistic sensibilities to read a post so full of editorialization under that label. Opinions and "privileging one set of representations over another"-- whether to the right OR TO THE LEFT-- are not news and should never be presented as such. It's the lack of discipline in that which has led to the "fake news crisis" we find ourselves in now.
Just saying, this SHOULD NOT be labeled news as it is clearly not contained at "reporting" but veers quite sharply into a lane more appropriately labeled "Opinion" or "Editorial." Should Teslarati choose to create such a section, I would welcome it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon-breitbart-words.html
That Breitbart is a right wing neo nazi hate site is not in question by rational people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon-breitbart-words.html
I didn't question the assertion that Breitbart is a biased source of questionable information and intent. I'm merely suggesting that Teslarati shouldn't become LIKE THEM. The article is clearly biased, as any rational person can see-- ergo, it should be labeled and categorized appropriately.
I didn't question the assertion that Breitbart is a biased source of questionable information and intent. I'm merely suggesting that Teslarati shouldn't become LIKE THEM. The article is clearly biased, as any rational person can see-- ergo, it should be labeled and categorized appropriately.
What is factually incorrect? Bias is a weak argument as a bias can be in favor of contextually accurate reporting. Neutral can be inaccurate as it lies on a statistical spectrum while truth and facts can be anywhere on that spectrum.
I didn't question the assertion that Breitbart is a biased source of questionable information and intent. I'm merely suggesting that Teslarati shouldn't become LIKE THEM. The article is clearly biased, as any rational person can see-- ergo, it should be labeled and categorized appropriately.
Let me give you a different example of how neutral is misleading. The press spent years giving equal weight to people who were actual experts on AGW leading to climate disruption versus political hacks without any integrity or science background.
The literature is quite clear that the truth and facts are completely on one side of this existential threat:
http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/newmethodology.html
The last paragraph ALONE disqualifies this as being a strictly news story. Period. End of story (literally).
If you can't see it, I can't help you.
The last paragraph ALONE disqualifies this as being a strictly news story. Period. End of story (literally).
Lovely to disqualify a story based on standing up for civilization. No wonder so many people consider our news media to be a joke.
Is it really necessary to say how this is....so, so scary? I am simply trembling at night as a result of this opinion piece. How about we get out of politics and leave this opinion article to MSNBC. I read this website to stay informed about TESLA and its company activities and innovations, etc. Not to read political spin articles.
Call your members of Congress, especially on the right every day as I am doing. Tell them how wrong this all is in your own words. We need you to use your fear on behalf of civilization.
I didn't question the assertion that Breitbart is a biased source of questionable information and intent. I'm merely suggesting that Teslarati shouldn't become LIKE THEM. The article is clearly biased, as any rational person can see-- ergo, it should be labeled and categorized appropriately.
To be clear Teslarati can't become like Breitbart. They are the opposite of them.
To be clear Teslarati can't become like Breitbart. They are the opposite of them.
EXACTLY. That is why I raise this concern.
I do not dispute nor disagree with any of the conclusions-- I simply disagree with opinion/commentary being presented as FACTUAL NEWS. There is a big difference and if it can't be seen and understood by the author/editorial board/readers of Teslarati, then this site will become the opposite of Breitbart-- but in all the wrong ways.
The integrity of what "news" is what has become a joke. It is the constant reporting of opinions/commentary/politic perspective/agenda AS NEWS that has degraded the term to the point that people don't respect or believe the truth when FINALLY IT IS presented to them.
I'm totally okay with this type of article (as is) to be on Teslarati or any other website-- just don't call it "news" if it contains statements with a clear opinion or agenda. Editorializing is one of the cardinal sins of journalism. The headline editorializes, the last paragraph definitely does and when the author writes about what something "suggests" or guesses at what a source REALLY meant ("the implication here is") the ground beneath the writer gets very shaky. The phrase: "even if Musk must hold his nose as he negotiates with Donald Trump," might be true, but unless Elon told the writer that directly, it's an assumption that is understandable but not justifiable in a journalistic sense.
I wouldn't typically bother trying to stake the high ground in a discussion online about media ethics, but it's a slippery slope I don't want to see Teslarati go down. I don't want them to be the opposite of Breitbart, because that's not good enough. Let's keep the news, THE NEWS.
If you don't like my legalistic stance, then consider the NYTimes own code (since they were cited above):
The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so....
...At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.
http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/
EXACTLY. That is why I raise this concern.
I do not dispute nor disagree with any of the conclusions-- I simply disagree with opinion/commentary being presented as FACTUAL NEWS. There is a big difference and if it can't be seen and understood by the author/editorial board/readers of Teslarati, then this site will become the opposite of Breitbart-- but in all the wrong ways.
The integrity of what "news" is what has become a joke. It is the constant reporting of opinions/commentary/politic perspective/agenda AS NEWS that has degraded the term to the point that people don't respect or believe the truth when FINALLY IT IS presented to them.
I'm totally okay with this type of article (as is) to be on Teslarati or any other website-- just don't call it "news" if it contains statements with a clear opinion or agenda. Editorializing is one of the cardinal sins of journalism. The headline editorializes, the last paragraph definitely does and when the author writes about what something "suggests" or guesses at what a source REALLY meant ("the implication here is") the ground beneath the writer gets very shaky. The phrase: "even if Musk must hold his nose as he negotiates with Donald Trump," might be true, but unless Elon told the writer that directly, it's an assumption that is understandable but not justifiable in a journalistic sense.
I wouldn't typically bother trying to stake the high ground in a discussion online about media ethics, but it's a slippery slope I don't want to see Teslarati go down. I don't want them to be the opposite of Breitbart, because that's not good enough. Let's keep the news, THE NEWS.
If you don't like my legalistic stance, then consider the NYTimes own code (since they were cited above):
The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so....
...At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.
http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/
Is it fair to give time to viewpoints that are destructive? The big lie technique works quite well today and merely repeating such idiocy as Muslims are bad legitimizes it.
Legitimizing destructive viewpoints... the argument could be made that be linking to them and considering them relevant enough to devote an article (and headline!) to them and their name goes a long way toward lending them legitimacy. At the very least, you drive some traffic to their site and they make money on each click.
Furthermore, the bar has been set (by this article) that whatever Breitbart thinks about Elon is newsworthy.
What does that imply or suggest?
On the whole though I think I agree w/ your intention. Teslarati needs to keep the click-bait titles down, and keep the insightful information and opinions up.
You really feel comfortable anointing one person, one website, one philosophy, one school of political thought as "that which is the correct viewpoint" to the exclusion of all others? I'm not.
Legitimizing destructive viewpoints... the argument could be made that be linking to them and considering them relevant enough to devote an article (and headline!) to them and their name goes a long way toward lending them legitimacy. At the very least, you drive some traffic to their site and they make money on each click.
Furthermore, the bar has been set (by this article) that whatever Breitbart thinks about Elon is newsworthy.
What does that imply or suggest?
I am quite comfortable with understanding that conservative views are not based on good science and have no place in a civilized society. If you think that "standing on your own two feet" is anything other than meaningless babble then you simply don't understand the very nature of being human.
I agree with your second paragraph obviously.
This article was incorrect to mention Breitbart.
a right wing supporting site has not criticized Tesla or any one of his businesses as a Ponzi scheme.
Is this what you believe? It isn't factual.
