> Though Musk prefaced one email with “off the record,” BuzzFeed News did not agree to that condition of the correspondence.
> (Per common journalistic practice, a conversation is off-the-record only if both parties agree to the terms.)
I assume that Musk would not have said these things "on the record" so does Buzzfeed's rejection of his claim mean anything here? I understand that there are no "laws" but the ethics of this feels... dubious. Especially since the NYU Journalism Handbook [0] they link says this (emphasis mine):
> In general, it is best to avoid off the record conversations; another option might be to converse off the record and then try to convince the source to agree to waive the agreement.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make?
It doesn't matter if Musk would not have said these things "on the record" or not, since he never had an agreement to be quoted off-the-record. It would seem to be his mistake.
There's nothing ethically dubious at all about what the reporter did. The NYU discussion you link to begins:
> On the record, on background, not for attribution and off the record: These are prearranged agreements between a reporter and a source, which govern how specific information can be used. These deals must be agreed to beforehand, never after.
A conversation doesn't become off-the-record when one party utters the magic words and continues without input from the other party.
> When dealing with individuals who are not experienced in talking with reporters, journalists should make sure ground rules and potential consequences are clear, and then perhaps offer leeway.
I am not sure, however, how much Musk deals with reporters via email and how often he uses these terms
Musk was being extraordinary slimy there. He tried to simultaneously put doubt on journalist mind and convince him that the diver is indeed child rapist. He prefaced it with unilateral "off the record" without buzzfed being able to disagree, so that he can simultaneously do the above while pretending something else in public or during court case.
Journalists not playing along is their prerogative. Otherwise the most slimy person acting on bad faith gets always his way while everyone else is getting used.
Musk is businessman and enterpreneur. He is used to use this tactic of unilateral agreement to regularly to manipulate, abuse good will and use people around him to get his way. It is good when someone occasionally stand up to that.
In case anyone thinks Musk has secret evidence (that he's inexplicably not sharing with anyone, not even police), remember that his first tweet on the subject was:
"Never saw this British expat guy who lives in Thailand (sus) at any point when we were in the caves."
He then quickly made his "(sus)" insinuation explicit with the "pedo guy" tweet. It's very clear that this was all based on nothing, just a stereotype of a white man in Thailand.
I wanted to admire Elon. It is honestly sad to see what's happening. I hope he finds a way out of this. As a person.
I also hope he resigns as the CEO of Tesla, it will be better for him and for the company, I think.
Two reasons I think. First, understandably by now the moderators must dread these kinds of submissions, given that they inevitably evolve along the same acrimonious lines. Supporting this submission by pinning it or unflagging it is sort of making a rod for their own back. Second, some people are fanatically pro-Musk and they downvote or flag without second thought. I don’t think it’s coordinated, I just think the result is rapid downvoting and mass flagging.
My advice is to email them if you feel strongly about this or other articles, and ask them to pin it or unflagging it, it understand if they err on the side of protecting their sanity rather than the submission.
I'm someone who appreciates technology, so I appreciate the technology that has been produced by Elon Musk's companies.
I would flag a story like this because it has nothing to do with technology. I'm not particularly interested in "famous person does drugs and goes crazy", because that's a boring story.
It may not relate to technology, but it does relate to the leadership of a closely-watched tech company. What if this were Steve Jobs? I doubt we'd flag it.
If it were Steve Jobs doing the same things he'd been doing for months or years, it'd probably be treated just the same, because it doesn't qualify as content that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
To me, these stories about Musk fall in the same bucket as those described thus: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.".
There's nothing interesting or new here, and the repetitive discussions confirm that.
It is quite strange. Gossip about how Steve Jobs behaved in private is routinely upvoted, despite being of approximately the same interest and value as stores about musk's public conduct - however the latter is routinely flagged. I guess if it was a story about how insightful he is instead, then it would be on the front page.
Simply put, it's increasingly harder for anyone to actually defend Musk. Over the past few years there's been quite a few threads on HN praising Musk, worshiping the ground he walks upon, making him into a Tech Savior and my guess is that when he says something indefensible like this, the best you can do is flag and move on.
Which, well, it's probably for the best of HN in either case. There's really not much else to say on this topic, although I hope that this whole nonsense he keeps perpetuating helps cull the cult surrounding him here. It's especially interesting because a few months ago I argued with someone that Musk will accept responsibility when he does something bad or says something stupid. And yet here we are.
Yeah I'm also getting the impression he's kind of losing it. I mean the first tweet could have been a simple error but then instead of saying sorry he just seems to be digging himself deeper. Also 'pedo guy' seems pretty non pedo http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6132427/Elon-Musk-ac...
Honestly, this shit is a non-event. It's gossipy nonsense. The cave thing is over. Who cares. Big deal. Name calling and mud slinging over minor disagreements is not some career shaking debacle. It happens all the time, and doesn't really need to be good-natured or well-intentioned. No laws were broken, no one is being ruined by this, and everyone's entitled to their opinion.
I honestly don't understand why he would get into a legal fight publicly with an unknown man, even if he had very secret info and his claims were true.
It is very sad to see him seek out problems and controversy. He has accomplished an unimaginable amount to this point and so many hopes for the future ride on his shoulders- and it appears to be breaking him.
He's sliding into the Howard Hughes path to self-destruction and I desperately hope he can pull out of the dive before it becomes a terminal one.
I think it's unfair to imply this relationship between mental illness and treating people badly. Most people with mental illness don't do things like that, and Musk can be perfectly mentally healthy and just be an asshole.
Unless there is a better word for someone who is losing touch with reality, I don't see what calling someone exhibiting those symptoms an asshole accomplishes.
Any idea if Elon Musk used cryptographicly signed messaging anywhere, because this starts to feel like his messaging has been compromised. Our president has plenty of reasons to want to destroy this man, and this could be the first extremely public example of the president using his power.
I wish that Twitter were like Hacker News whereby tweets older than x minutes are made permanently immutable. People would wise up quick if that were the case.
38 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 75.8 ms ] thread> (Per common journalistic practice, a conversation is off-the-record only if both parties agree to the terms.)
I assume that Musk would not have said these things "on the record" so does Buzzfeed's rejection of his claim mean anything here? I understand that there are no "laws" but the ethics of this feels... dubious. Especially since the NYU Journalism Handbook [0] they link says this (emphasis mine):
> In general, it is best to avoid off the record conversations; another option might be to converse off the record and then try to convince the source to agree to waive the agreement.
[0] https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us/resources/ethics-handboo...
It doesn't matter if Musk would not have said these things "on the record" or not, since he never had an agreement to be quoted off-the-record. It would seem to be his mistake.
> On the record, on background, not for attribution and off the record: These are prearranged agreements between a reporter and a source, which govern how specific information can be used. These deals must be agreed to beforehand, never after.
A conversation doesn't become off-the-record when one party utters the magic words and continues without input from the other party.
> When dealing with individuals who are not experienced in talking with reporters, journalists should make sure ground rules and potential consequences are clear, and then perhaps offer leeway.
I am not sure, however, how much Musk deals with reporters via email and how often he uses these terms
Journalists not playing along is their prerogative. Otherwise the most slimy person acting on bad faith gets always his way while everyone else is getting used.
Musk is businessman and enterpreneur. He is used to use this tactic of unilateral agreement to regularly to manipulate, abuse good will and use people around him to get his way. It is good when someone occasionally stand up to that.
"Never saw this British expat guy who lives in Thailand (sus) at any point when we were in the caves."
He then quickly made his "(sus)" insinuation explicit with the "pedo guy" tweet. It's very clear that this was all based on nothing, just a stereotype of a white man in Thailand.
My advice is to email them if you feel strongly about this or other articles, and ask them to pin it or unflagging it, it understand if they err on the side of protecting their sanity rather than the submission.
I would flag a story like this because it has nothing to do with technology. I'm not particularly interested in "famous person does drugs and goes crazy", because that's a boring story.
To me, these stories about Musk fall in the same bucket as those described thus: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.".
There's nothing interesting or new here, and the repetitive discussions confirm that.
Which, well, it's probably for the best of HN in either case. There's really not much else to say on this topic, although I hope that this whole nonsense he keeps perpetuating helps cull the cult surrounding him here. It's especially interesting because a few months ago I argued with someone that Musk will accept responsibility when he does something bad or says something stupid. And yet here we are.
He's sliding into the Howard Hughes path to self-destruction and I desperately hope he can pull out of the dive before it becomes a terminal one.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-thai-...
because it's not [dead]
Using your huge Twitter megaphone to smear someone who insults you isn't a guarantee of mental illness.