Thank you for posting. Reminds me of the NYT article that bashed Amazon and Bezos a while back. Didn't take much digging to conclude the author/organization has a preconceived bias against the subject.
Doesn't every journalist when reporting on any newsworthy item? Everybody has their biases, and they'll naturally come out in reporting. There is no "fair and balanced", it's just a matter of what extent these biases are hidden in the work.
I think the onus is on us, the consumers of this media, to take every piece as only part of the whole truth, and make up our own minds about the subject.
It is impossible to completely escape one's own unconscious biases but this particular example is a blog post written by someone in an obvious attempt to put forward a personal (or business) agenda.
Writing a string or articles about the same topic, shouldn't instantly mean you get extra scrutiny. That scrutiny should be on everyone, since sometimes the most biased are those who care the least to write and have done the least groundwork.
Robojournalism might be even more ripe for bias, but from its sources rather than the journalist itself. Theoretically part of a journalist's job is to get valuable sources from each side of an argument/story and present them equally. The journalist's footprint should be minimal. As we all know, that is increasingly less the case.
This case seems a bit different. In the Amazon case there were lots of employees that agreed with the article hinting that it had a lot of truth to it.
I hope it's obvious to anyone that Tesla's (and to a lesser extent, Amazon's) massive valuation is not based on bedrock fundamentals but on perception and expectations. Baseless hit pieces that knock a few percentage points off your stock are part of the game at that point.
http://lazytechguys.com/featured/google-engineer-steve-yegge...