The mainstream media’s trashing of Elon Musk is not journalism at all. In fact, I think it’s highly disturbing that news websites are so obsessed with Elon Musk. They’ve gone from using his name to make money off of clicks to making up stuff about him or twisting his words for clicks.
Remember that Wall Street Journal article from this weekend? The one that accused Elon Musk of having an affair with Sergey Brin’s wife and claimed that Elon and Sergey were no longer friends. This is one example.
The WSJ’s decision to stand by its already refuted article shows that journalistic ethics have been sold for clicks. It’s a sad day for journalism.
Moreover, I talked to Sergey yesterday and he says neither he nor anyone he knows has talked to WSJ
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 27, 2022
Not only did Elon Musk publicly deny the story, but so did Nichole Shanahan’s lawyer. In a statement to The Daily Mail, the attorney said that not only was the WSJ’s report false, but it was also defamatory.
“Make no mistake, any suggestion that Nicole had an affair with Elon Musk is not only an outright lie but also defamatory.”
Additionally, Elon Musk shared a photo of himself and the Google co-founder with the New York Post and said, that he’d spoken with both parties who were adamant that they were not the source behind the WSJ’s claims.
Why is the mainstream media’s trashing of Elon Musk intensifying?
Why does the mainstream media hate Elon Musk so much? This is a question I asked on Twitter. It was rhetorical because many in the Tesla community, including myself, suspect a few reasons.
Tesla’s refusal to buy advertising, Elon’s continuous standing up for himself against trolls, and of course, the clicks.
One thing I’ve noticed is that this hatred of Elon is intensifying. And the WSJ’s refusal to retract its allegations reflects its dismissal of journalistic ethics. According to a spokesperson from the outlet, “We are confident in our sourcing, and we stand by our reporting.”
That WSJ article doesn’t line up with the SPJ Code of Ethics.
The Society of Professional Journalists has its own Code of Ethics and in my opinion, that hit piece on Elon Musk definitely does not line up with that code.
These sources were not identified clearly and yet the WSJ is banking its reputation on these sources despite not even interviewing any of the parties involved. Another note from the SPJ Code of Ethics is to consider the motives of the sources before promising anonymity.
In fact, journalists should reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution, or other harm. And they need to have information that can’t be obtained elsewhere.
If the story were true, where’s the evidence?
If the story of Elon Musk kneeling in front of Sergey Brin at a party were true, why are there no videos or photos? Surely it would be easy to pull out your phone, snap a pic and post it to Twitter. Everyone wants photos of Elon Musk.
If we can see Elon vacationing with his friends in Greece, then surely the WSJ would want to see evidence of Elon doing what they said he did. How come we don’t have any evidence?
Ethics traded for the trashing of Elon Musk
The SPJ Code of Ethics also says that journalists should balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. “Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”
The code also calls for journalists to show compassion for those who may be affected by the news coverage. Where is the compassion for Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, and Nichole Shanahan?
You can access the full code of ethics here.
If you have a tip, feel free to send them to johnna@teslarati.com
Elon Musk said he is planning to give “every one of his SpaceX shares to every kid in America” in 2027, stating that “this will be the first of many.”
SpaceX went public earlier this year, and its stock price has been relatively stable since leveling off shortly after its IPO. Based on its current price, it’s a gift of just over $10 billion to children across the United States.
It appears to be closely related to President Donald Trump’s bank accounts for children, which were set up earlier this year as Trump Accounts.
Just hours earlier, Anthropic had announced the establishment of its Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, “a new wholly-owned entity dedicated entirely to public benefit.” Musk responded by stating he recommended “giving the shares directly to the public,” and that he would be doing it that way.
Just a little bit later, Musk said children across the U.S. would be getting a share from him:
Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America.
This will be the first of many.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026
There are roughly 70 million children, meaning someone under the age of 18, in the United States, according to the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Musk’s ownership of SpaceX stock shows he has around 849 million Class A shares of SpaceX stock, according to filings with the SEC.
Elon Musk revealed in a post on X that “Permits were impossible to get,” explaining the fate of The Boring Company’s most ambitious East Coast proposal.
The comment responded to a query about what became of his July 20, 2017 announcement that he had “just received verbal govt approval” for an underground Hyperloop connecting New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., capable of carrying passengers from the Big Apple to the Nation’s Capital in just 29 minutes.
The Boring Company receives verbal ‘approval’ to build NY to DC Hyperloop tunnel
The 2017 post, which envisioned city-center stations and multiple elevators in each city, sparked immediate scrutiny. Local and state officials in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. said they had no knowledge of any approval. A White House spokesperson confirmed only “promising conversations” about the transformative infrastructure.
Musk clarified shortly after that there was “still a lot of work” to do for formal approvals.
@cybrtrkguy Permits were impossible to get
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026
Limited progress followed, as Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s administration issued a conditional utility permit and supported work near Fort Meade. In 2018, Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary permit for site preparation and excavation on a vacant lot at 53 New York Ave. NE in the NoMa neighborhood, which The Boring Company said could become a station.
A draft environmental assessment for a D.C.-Baltimore segment was released in 2019. Yet, by April 2021, the company had removed the project from its website, and the Federal Highway Administration reported receiving no indication of further interest. Communication with Maryland officials had ceased.
The full corridor would have required coordination among the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, and other agencies.
Environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, utility clearances, and approvals for novel infrastructure added to the overall complexity of the project and its approval.
Speculation on the permitting barriers centers around a few factors, but a multi-state, multi-level route involving unproven high-speed vacuum-tube technology inherently triggers exhaustive safety, environmental, and engineering reviews that can stretch for years, even for conventional projects.
There are also other elements, of course, like officials who may face political exposure if a privately funded, untested system encountered anything such as cost overruns, delays, or safety issues. On the outset of this project, there were limited things such as engineering plans or demonstrated technology maturity, which also added to the potential skepticism.
The East Coast vision for Boring Co., once framed as a privately funded revolution that could reshape Northeast travel, quietly ended without construction of the promised network. Musk’s recent statement frames the outcome as a regulatory impasse, unfortunate but not unexpected.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to his social media platform X on Sunday to remind everyone that the Roadster’s true meaning is not about company growth or adding dollars to shareholders’ pockets. Sometimes, you just do things because you can.
Following the Roadster’s epic unveiling event last Thursday, skeptics and critics of the company or the project itself came out to say that the vehicle is a pointless project because it is not geared toward growing the company, delivering supreme margins for profitability, nor does it contribute to the big picture of Artificial/Super Intelligence.
But that’s just the thing: Roadster is not meant to be some shareholder dream; it’s meant to be a vehicle that people buy just because it is something awesome, unique, and the first of its kind.
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
Musk had to remind those who are skeptical about the Roadster’s importance to the company mission that while it is not a major contributor to Tesla’s long-term goals, it is something that is being built just because it can be:
“Optimus and Cybercab will be the vast majority of Tesla’s value. The only things that will scale to incredible size (K2 and beyond) economically are super intelligence, robots, solar power, and mass to space. And, of course, if you have the first two, the rest will follow. But Roadster is super cool, so we’re doing it anyway.”
Musk has said on many occasions that Optimus would be the project that would make up the vast majority of Tesla’s value in the coming years.
Robotics will be a major focus of Tesla over the coming years, especially as Musk believes Optimus will enable work to be optional for humans and will enable what he calls “High Universal Income.”
Optimus and Cybercab will be the vast majority of Tesla’s value.
The only things that will scale to incredible size (K2 and beyond) economically are super intelligence, robots, solar power and mass to space.
And, of course, if you have the first two, the rest will follow.
But Roadster is super cool, so we’re doing it anyway.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2026
Cybercab will be a passive income opportunity for owners, Musk and Tesla have said for a very long time, as a fleet of self-driving vehicles will operate within a ride-hailing Robotaxi service that won’t require a human driver to be present.
Tesla investors are more than enthusiastic about the company’s future projects, at least from a general consensus perspective. However, it is important to note that the Roadster is a fun and cool project that pushes the boundaries of what people thought was possible for an automobile.
What we saw last week was the first true example of a flying car, and despite the backlash about how it might not contribute to Tesla’s grand ambitions, it’s okay to have fun sometimes, too.
Elon Musk will give ‘every kid in America’ a SpaceX share in 2027
Elon Musk reveals why Boring Co’s biggest East Coast project never happened
Tesla CEO Elon Musk reminds everyone about Roadster’s true meaning
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
