So I’m a fool for believing the board members, but you’re not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ
I’m assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn’t.
I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out?
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.
What we call “JoUrNaLiStS” these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok’d it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla’s board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a “JoUrNaLiSt” who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn’t just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the “guilty until proven innocent” category, because that’s essentially what you’re saying here - you’re asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren’t doing it you then don’t believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla’s stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
So I’m a fool for believing the board members, but you’re not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
I’m assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn’t.
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.
deleted by creator
What we call “JoUrNaLiStS” these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok’d it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla’s board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a “JoUrNaLiSt” who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn’t just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the “guilty until proven innocent” category, because that’s essentially what you’re saying here - you’re asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren’t doing it you then don’t believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla’s stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
We don’t want Murdoch back btw.