What follows are some rough thoughts about how to do it. Take a panel of say the of 13 most reliable writers and comenters out there on Tesla, make them Tesla employees exclusively (for this area of professional activity.) Make sure they meet regularly face to face daily to discuss. Support them with researchers. Have them review each article each day that comes out and rate them as below with the composite score posted for each category (scores should not be blind internally- someone like Musk should be able to look at internal record of each reviewer). Make sure at least 10 reviewers comment to produce the each composite/cumulative score. May not be necessary to hit articles same day as release or within hours, need some way of prioritizing- prioritize by exposure. Keep local copies of articles reviewed. Rate articles with cumulative scores with drop down hyperlinks for each historical cumulative point assigned pro or con: Outlet: (apparent accuracy) (known apparent conflicts of interest) (apparent strategic in-accuracy) Author(s): (apparent accuracy) (known apparent conflicts of interest) (apparent strategic in-accuracy) Article: (apparent accuracy) (known apparent conflicts of interest) (apparent strategic in-accuracy) Parroting: (cumulative point per attempt to create phony negative consensus with references and linking to other shill pieces or shills or conflict organizations) Corrections: This is a textual correction of inaccuracies where it makes sense plus a numeric count. Research staff can hyper link. Verdict: FUD or Not FUD Strategic FUD Maybe a Rotton Tomateos score (scaled score to plus or minus 100 composite for articles, authors and outlets) On apparent accuracy it is an additional minus point for each apparent factual inaccuracy and an additional positive point for each relevant new point of analysis that appears to be accurate. Can't just parrot known items. On the conflicts of interest it is a point for every known cumulative element especially along ownership and sponsorship lines- most of it should focus on following the money i.e., corporate wiki etc., to cut through the boxes and look at which boards people sit on, acquisitions etc., and work history of authors and influencers and what programs and grant's fund entities and political orientations behind them. The point here is not to make enemies or make it difficult for people to change so some of this may be internal- but should be traceable by for instance Musk. Revisions are fine and encouraged at time goes by (dedicate a researcher to it) but make the progression of revisions sortable and viewable. On apparent strategic inaccuracies, it's plausible that some sites or authors won't have this. But I am not aware of any sites that don't have this aspect. There are certainly some authors who don't do this- I could come up with maybe 13 if I tried. This is important because it is the most dangerous FUD and needs to be most strongly highlighted. There are some authors and sites that are just there to tell the strategic lie at the right time- they will try to pitch it as opinion but its bribed BS- from people paid for strategic lying and nothing else. Don't get baited into commenting on things that reveal Tesla strategy, this is a Tesla meta analysis of media, so good judgment, some firewalling and some timely access to Tesla people where needed to tread lightly is important. Also good to go back with retrospective meta analysis. If its author(s) plural on an article just take the composite score but show the break down on each author. Again, the apparent strategic inaccuracy score is extremely important. Take Fred Lambert. He is excellent in quality and commentary but in my opinion when the chips are down he sometimes tells what appear to be strategic lies or strategic spin- like a price is right plant. Nothing more damaging than this. So when petrol needs to push its BS hard it can rely on someone like him to help tip the ball. Curiously enough that does not seem to be the case with Seth, his counter-part- is that good cop bad cop? Fred would not be the kind of person you want on the review staff or the research staff because of this most important kind of negative input. And of course have to ditch internal reviewers/researchers that start to take the bribe. All you need is suspect analysis- don't have to prove it- put that in the contract. It is not about scaring people or barring dissent- but the stragic lie pattern is very telling. Having it manifest in several staff members would be the greatest risk, but so far you have a true north in people like Musk. Also with Elekrek one tell-tale is FUD media apparently went out of its way to say Elektrek was a Tesla shill- possibly a tell-tale that they are trying to protect their asset for the strategic lie. Luckily in Elon Musk Tesla has a pretty good and reliable person for what is pro Tesla and good for the existential movement. Wouldn't be about pleasing Musk as it is about protecting truth and honest discourse. Apparently Musk will do what he wants with links etc. but hoping steps will be taken in review to bar fudsters hoping to triangulate Musk's himself into the proceedings. Hoping the staff also take on the more general articles that effect the industry and the movement. For instance BNEF is pure sht, they can't even manage strategic inaccuracy because it is all intentionally inaccurate all the time, - they are a production of petrol- doesn't matter if their front is Michael Bloomberg. The kind of people who do this sort of analysis likely do keep an eye on the comments sections of sites. Also make sure that the site and the authors can be reached by email. Don't use Discuss or other silly unsafe and unsecure platforms. If this is being done right a Tesla Truth type site will hit the top of the news stream on Tesla all the time. May be necessary to go after Google because Google is a Auto Pilot competitor and it may be skewing and its secret formula on SEO has let in bribery for placement which is unacceptable and stupid. So bribed negative ads will ping to the top of their search lists. Even seen it do this kind of stuff with its Google's trends with say Sony where volume was way higher than it should have been at times inexplicably. Important as soon as possible to focus on honest open search with a semantic component like MaidSAFE's coming solution- need something better than Google's bribery list.
