When I began covering Tesla in 2016, the company started grooming me

I might be cynical, but the thread seems to come from a place of naivety more than anything. The author was getting preferential access because their reporting was positive for the company. When he decided to become a "real" journalist that caused Tesla to cut ties with him because they won't give all-access to someone who might be out to air their dirty laundry.

Look at interviews with any big companies CEO, the journalist doing them are given a very narrow field to play with, that's the price to pay to get preferential treatment.

The title is cherry on top because it sounds like the author paints himself as a victim by using a word "grooming", that is commonly associated with sexual predation on minors.

This is a really distasteful way to use the word 'grooming.'

Is this unique to Tesla, or does basically every other large corporation with a media relations department do this too?

This is the reason why CEOs and C-executives make the lateral move to politics.

Large organizations like that are essentially political organizations

> At a media tour of the new Gigafactory I was told by the PR people how much Musk liked my (softball) question about how he felt achieving his Gigafactory dream.

Wait. You were asking him a softball question, presumably to "reward" him for the access he gave you. That's how it works.

So why are you then making a point of bringing up he's winking back when you wink at him? It sounds like you're playing the game, enjoying it, and when something goes wrong you go spill the beans that a game exists.

I don't think this is naivety as someone else here mentions, it's something much worse.

This thread is just describing how journalism works: you develop relationships with companies and people, and if they like your reporting they give you more access to do more of the same reporting. It's also describing a downside to the modern world of independent (lone person) journalism and microblogging. These people are much easier and cheaper to influence than larger organizations such as newspapers and broadcast media.

Another thread from the TechCrunch transportation editor: https://twitter.com/kirstenkorosec/status/153027887741036544...

I don't get the entitlement of this journalist. I mean, it is obvious that companies would engage favorably with you if you can promote them for free with good pieces on the positive stuff that they are doing and would clearly stop engaging if is not convenient for them anymore. Companies just care about profits. Their actions are not necessarily morally based, only value based. While the goals of Tesla as a company are decent, the way they handle business is just like any other corporation, ie disgusting. Nothing surprising.

This is how literally all access media works. Companies, politicians, and celebrities only give access when they know they'll get favorable and softball coverage. It's pretty rare when American journalists push back during interviews--they usually just give them the person being interviewed free air time to speak their talking points.

I call BS on that one. The author links to a post by Ed Niedermeyer. That’s the same guy who started a site called “Tesla Death Watch” back in 2008. Though in the current article he claims he came to see “the true face of Musk” in 2015.

But this is how PR and journalism work? Rather, basic human tendencies even. You say good things, they give you preferential treatment. Simple.