Slashdot Mirror
Right-Wing and Fake News Writers Are Now Going After Elon Musk (qz.com)
Fake news galvanized US president-elect Donald Trump's supporters, and sullied his enemies. Now it may be Elon Musk's turn. Quartz adds: The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX has his fair share of detractors, but a new era in a public relations battle to discredit him appears to be taking shape. Bloomberg reports that hard-right groups are lining up to back misleading websites and fake journalists who attack Musk's business empire. Many of the attacks on Musk begin with something factual: His businesses were built, legally, with the help of billions in government contracts and incentives for renewable energy and space transport. But they go on to accuse Musk of fraud and wasting taxpayer dollars; some compare him to a convicted felon. At least three conservative sites have run negative pieces about Musk -- by a nonexistent writer named "Shepard Stewart" -- that include "Elon Musk Continues to Blow Up Taxpayer Money With Falcon 9" and "Elon Musk: Faux Free Marketeer and National Disgrace." Two later retracted the stories. "There's a very obvious precedent" for this, says Sam Jaffe, managing director of Cairn Energy Research Advisors. "That's Hillary Clinton." Musk tweeted this week, "Can anyone uncover who is really writing these fake pieces?"
This.
Fossil fuel is (I know it's hard to fathom) more desperate for survival than tobacco was back when, and the IP industry is now.
I helped litigate tobacco and the conversation went like this:
Scientists: Your shit is killing people.
Tobacco: Jobs.
Lawyers: Your shit is killing people.
Tobacco: Jobs.
Rinse, repeat.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
There's a difference between fake news and biased takes upon it.
It is subtle; but there is a difference.
Michael brown: was shot by a cop; and the only "fake" part of this, is "in cold blood". But that is an interpretation of the news. the "Attempt to steal the cops gun and charged at him" is what the cop who shot him says right? So if the narative is the cop is lying, then it could easily be a true headline. What is being reported here, is that there is a dispute between what happened, and what is being reported. This is a case where there is some complexity. This is not fake news.
Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome. Wheres the part where it was fake news? You agree that Tumps campaign considers legal action, the definition of not accepting the election outcome. So, you agree this is not fake news? PS. I'd like to point out that right now Clinton is considering legal action! would reporting that be fake news too? according to you, just because sometimes not accepting the election outcome is a thing that happens, that it is fake news!
Hackers caused trump to win state X. This might be fake news. (Except, the news in this circumstance is more likely people reporting that Crazy person X says that hackers caused a Trump win - not "hackers caused it" but "crazy man says hackers caused it". I'm still calling it fake news so, thats something for you right?
2016 is the hottest year on record. It is; according to the temperature data released by the scientists. Yes the scientists do modify the data to normalise it, that is how science works, if you don't understand it - please go and learn what they are doing. Is there room for different types of data manipulation? yes. That is what science does. Takes the figures; then normalise them to fix measurement errors. This is not fake news.
Trumps economic plans to protect american workers were racist. OK, so your argument is Bernie had the same policies and wasn't called racist. But that isn't an argument against the headline. That is an argument about favourtism. As far as I can tell you fundamentally agree that Trump and Bernies plans were racist. Therefore, this is not fake news.
As far as I can tell, you are 1/5. And that 1 is borderline.
The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though. There's already more jobs in renewables than in oil or coal (Either one by itself. Not combined, yet.). We hit that tipping point this year. Jobs growth in renewables has been crushing fossil fuels for the last several years. Investments in renewables are growing exponentially. And if you look out past five years or so (Yeah, I know, most MBA types are congenitally incapable of looking past the next quarter. Whatever.) we're close to profit growth; and not long after, profits being larger than fossil duels. Renewables ARE where the jobs are, and it's where the money is fi you play the long game.
Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Governor Schwarzenegger put it brilliantly. Even if you *don't* believe in global warming (Which is still a stupid-ass position.) fossil fuels are eventually going to run out. Before they run out, they're going to become more expensive to extract. Renewables are the future. Renewables are where the jobs and investment opportunities are, moving forward. And what sort of moron wants to be the last investor in Blockbuster when Netflix is about to crush them?
Imagine all the people...
2016 is the hottest year on record" is fake news if you don't include the error bars in your measurements.
2016 is so far ahead of previous records that it is well beyond the margin of uncertainty. Nevermind 1/100 of a degree. This year is over 1/4 of a degree warmer than the previous peak.