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 flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
