2) The example given in this article, that Musk posted links to allegedly bad news sources and then retracted them once he realized that he made a bad recommendation, should be seen as a positive sign. Musk is human, and like all humans, he makes mistakes. The important thing is that he realized he was wrong and tried to fix it.
3) The lesson taken from this isn't that "Musk is bad" it's that skepticism about all information should reign, regardless of source. It doesn't matter if Obama, Musk, Biden, Trump, Fauci, Gates, Alex Jones, or whoever tells the world some alleged fact. You should verify everything that anybody tells you about anything and trust nobody to be the sole arbiter of truth.
4) I think a good journalist would post more information about the endorsement that Musk gave by posting screenshots or something. I'd like to get a better sense of Musk's judgement by seeing their feed for myself, but this article doesn't give that important information. I think that a big problem with modern journalism is that it treats you as if you're not a big boy that can be trusted to make up his own mind and have to be told what to think rather than being shown the facts and giving you the opportunity to make up your own mind.
5) Speaking of responsible journalism, I'd like to point out that motives do matter. And while you can't read minds, it does seem that a lot of journalists' feelings about Musk are peppered by having their elite blue checkmark statuses ripped away from them and hypothetically being available to everybody. That should be a factor that weighs into anybody's analysis when reading journalists about Musk's activity.