Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Would they have published if they had only one source on Musk’s drug use (indicating he’d smoked pot a few times) and one surreptitiously obtained text with a
‘Oh yeah, I’m on all sorts of drugs!!’ (Upside down smiley face)

Because that’s more the analogy here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

The article was published one day after Musk left his government post. Use some critical reasoning skills, please.

No, YOU use critical reasoning skills. The leakers work for Trump. They worked on the campaign and work in the administration. They don't like Musk but the *do* like Trump. The NYT didn't hold the piece to help out Trump. The leakers wouldn't participate until they knew Musk was on his way out and that the blowback would be focused on Musk instead of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

The article was published one day after Musk left his government post. Use some critical reasoning skills, please.

No, YOU use critical reasoning skills. The leakers work for Trump. They worked on the campaign and work in the administration. They don't like Musk but the *do* like Trump. The NYT didn't hold the piece to help out Trump. The leakers wouldn't participate until they knew Musk was on his way out and that the blowback would be focused on Musk instead of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

The article was published one day after Musk left his government post. Use some critical reasoning skills, please.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Probably because most of the Baldoni story is sourced from the texts or the CRD and they were confident that the law doesn't require them to litigate and examine those claims. They also interviewed Lively but IIRC did not use any quotes from her. This new story has a lot more quoting from unnamed sources.

Yes, I know this area of the law fairly well, and I know they’ll expect to rely on fair report as a defense, but they went outside FR imo (claims they deeply investigated, the headline, as ex), and it was just sloppy and lazy journalism, especially from NYT Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist. I still can’t figure it out…

Maybe stop trying to make this whole “The NYT is a failing and shoddy newspaper” schtick happen. They are pretty great, especially when compared against the gossip rags like Daily Mail that you post here. This Musk story is expansively reported and important, and they do this kind of thing pretty frequently.

I’m PP and I’ve never posted that the NYT is shoddy or failing. Not once. Nor have I posted DM pieces. I think that the NYT is imperfect but one of the best papers there is. That’s why I’m so baffled at this Blake schlock… why??