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
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft will face a jury trial this spring after a federal judge rejected their efforts to dismiss Elon Musk’s lawsuit, which accuses the artificial intelligence startup of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. The ruling keeps alive claims that OpenAI misled the Tesla CEO about its charitable purpose while accepting billions of dollars in funding.
As noted in a report from Bloomberg News, a federal judge in Oakland, California, ruled that OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft failed to show that Musk’s claims should be dismissed. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that while the evidence remains unclear, Musk has maintained that OpenAI “had a specific charitable purpose and that he attached two fundamental terms to it: that OpenAI be open source and that it would remain a nonprofit — purposes consistent with OpenAI’s charter and mission.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers also rejected an argument by OpenAI suggesting that Musk’s use of an intermediary to donate $38 million in seed money to the company stripped him of legal standing. “Holding otherwise would significantly reduce the enforcement of a large swath of charitable trusts, contrary to the modern trend,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
The judge also declined to dismiss Musk’s fraud allegations, citing internal OpenAI communications from 2017 involving co-founder Greg Brockman. In an email cited by the judge, fellow OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis informed Musk that Brockman would “like to continue with the non-profit structure.”
Just two months later, however, Brockman wrote in a private note that he “cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit. don’t want to say that we’re committed. if three months later we’re doing b-corp then it was a lie.”
Marc Toberoff, a member of Musk’s legal team, said Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s ruling confirms that “there is substantial evidence that OpenAI’s leadership made knowingly false assurances to Mr. Musk about its charitable mission that they never honored in favor of their personal self-enrichment.”
OpenAI, for its part, maintained that Musk’s legal efforts are baseless. In a statement, the AI startup said it is looking forward to the upcoming trial. “Mr. Musk’s lawsuit continues to be baseless and a part of his ongoing pattern of harassment, and we look forward to demonstrating this at trial. We remain focused on empowering the OpenAI Foundation, which is already one of the best-resourced nonprofits ever,” OpenAI stated.
News
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
The man has now reached the “Find Out” stage.
A Mesa, Arizona man has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for setting fire to a Tesla location and vehicle in a politically motivated arson attack, federal prosecutors have stated.
The April 2025 incident destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck, endangered first responders, and triggered mandatory sentencing under federal arson laws.
A five-year sentence
U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa sentenced Ian William Moses, 35, of Mesa, Arizona, to 5 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for maliciously damaging property and vehicles by means of fire. Moses pleaded guilty in October to all five counts brought by a federal grand jury. Restitution will be determined at a hearing scheduled for April 13, 2026.
As per court records, surveillance footage showed Moses arriving at a Tesla store in Mesa shortly before 2 a.m. on April 28, 2025, carrying a gasoline can and backpack. Investigators stated that he placed fire starter logs near the building, poured gasoline on the structure and three vehicles, and ignited the fire. The blaze destroyed a Tesla Cybertruck. Moses fled the scene on a bicycle and was arrested by Mesa police about a quarter mile away, roughly an hour later.
Authorities said Moses was still wearing the same clothing seen on camera at the time of his arrest and was carrying a hand-drawn map marking the dealership’s location. Moses also painted the word “Theif” on the walls of the Tesla location, prompting jokes from social media users and Tesla community members.
The “Finding Out” stage
U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine noted that Moses’ sentence reflects the gravity of his crime. He also highlighted that arson is never acceptable.
“Arson can never be an acceptable part of American politics. Mr. Moses’ actions endangered the public and first responders and could have easily turned deadly. This five-year sentence reflects the gravity of these crimes and makes clear that politically fueled attacks on Arizona’s communities and businesses will be met with full accountability.”
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell echoed the same sentiments, stating that regardless of Moses’ sentiments towards Elon Musk, his actions are not defensible.
“This sentence sends a clear message: violence and intimidation have no place in our community. Setting fire to a business in retaliation for political or personal grievances is not protest, it is a crime. Our community deserves to feel safe, and this sentence underscores that Maricopa County will not tolerate political violence in any form.”
News
Tesla says its Texas lithium refinery is now operational and unlike anything in North America
Elon Musk separately described the site as both the most advanced and the largest lithium refinery in the United States.
Tesla has confirmed that its Texas lithium refinery is now operational, marking a major milestone for the company’s U.S. battery supply chain. In a newly released video, Tesla staff detailed how the facility converts raw spodumene ore directly into battery-grade lithium hydroxide, making it the first refinery of its kind in North America.
Elon Musk separately described the site as both the most advanced and the largest lithium refinery in the United States.
A first-of-its-kind lithium refining process
In the video, Tesla staff at the Texas lithium refinery near Corpus Christi explained that the facility processes spodumene, a lithium-rich hard-rock ore, directly into battery-grade lithium hydroxide on site. The approach bypasses intermediate refining steps commonly used elsewhere in the industry.
According to the staff, spodumene is processed through kilns and cooling systems before undergoing alkaline leaching, purification, and crystallization. The resulting lithium hydroxide is suitable for use in batteries for energy storage and electric vehicles. Tesla employees noted that the process is simpler and less expensive than traditional refining methods.
Staff at the facility added that the process eliminates hazardous byproducts typically associated with lithium refining. “Our process is more sustainable than traditional methods and eliminates hazardous byproducts, and instead produces a co-product named anhydrite, used in concrete mixes,” an employee noted.
Musk calls the facility the largest lithium refinery in America
The refinery’s development timeline has been very impressive. The project moved from breaking ground in 2023 to integrated plant startup in 2025 by running feasibility studies, design, and construction in parallel. This compressed schedule enabled the fastest time-to-market for a refinery using this type of technology. This 2026, the facility has become operational.
Elon Musk echoed the significance of the project in posts on X, stating that “the largest Lithium refinery in America is now operational.” In a separate comment, Musk described the site as “the most advanced lithium refinery in the world” and emphasized that the facility is “very clean.”
By bringing large-scale lithium hydroxide production online in Texas, Tesla is positioning itself to reduce reliance on foreign refining capacity while supporting its growth in battery and vehicle production. The refinery also complements Tesla’s nascent domestic battery manufacturing efforts, which could very well be a difference maker in the market.
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is heading to jury trial
Tesla arsonist who burned Cybertruck sees end of FAFO journey
