"Agenda" has become code for "ideas I don't agree with", used by people who mistakenly believe it (politics) can be compartmentalized from other everyday topics and only trotted out at election time.
replyI disagree. Agendas are real things. Just because they have one, doesn't mean it is inherently bad or even a disagreeable position... but some people just don't like to be "sold to", regardless of the topic.
replyI'm afraid both are true. And they often go hand in hand. Often, someone calling out an agenda is doing so to sell theirs. (See also "ideology", which is often treated as a synonym.)
replyFor some people perhaps. For me personally, I find some sites purposefully interject their 'agenda', either left or right into their journalism to the detriment of the piece. You're not going to a get a truely subjective view on things anywhere but some places are skewed to the point that you can't tell if vital information is being witheld or under reported.
reply_Daily_ hit pieces on Elon Musk (or Musk companies), going for something like a decade. These have petered out somewhat since he left DOGE. But they started way back before he should have had that much notoriety.
replyThey were rightfully been calling out the grift at Tesla. On the SpaceX front they've been his biggest cheerleader (even dismissing other stories like the sexual harrassment)
replyI got tired of reading about Trump and Elon.
replyI'm also trying to understand. The agenda is to publish about Trump and Elon? Is that correct?
replyThe agenda is to highlight when Trump and Elon blunder but ignore neutral or positive stories. Go to the front page right now and look at the articles, I see four mentioning Trump that are negatively charged. That isn't to say any one article is untrue, but hard to miss the curated pattern
replyAnd is that supposed to be bad in any way?
replyHonest question: has he done anything you think warrants good press?
replyI too quickly grew tired of the constant doomerism in his first term, but this one seems to be unmitigatedly terrible.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/trump-admin-says...
replyThis is the only thing that comes to mind, and Ars covered it.
Apart from articles by the two space reporters, any news about Musk tend to be biased towards being extremely negative.
replyAside from SpaceX, has there been any positive news about Musk lately?
replyGitlin, at least, also
slants the negative news. The story on sales about Tesla losing market share to VW, but other outlets reported it as VW gaining the top spot.
replyThey've always had more coverage of Tesla than other automakers, or at least I've always noticed it more. When Tesla was leading EV sales they dutifully reported that, when they're dropping they report it just as well. If anything slanted coverage would be reporting less on Tesla because they are doing badly, which seems to be what you want.
replyWould that excuse being extremely negative about anything that is much less than extremely negative?
replyThat is an incredibly tortured sentence. I'm not really interested in parsing tone in an article, that's very subjective. I would be interested if you could demonstrate that Ars was choosing not to write articles about factual things that would portray Musk in a positive light, but you instead basically said "If you ignore all of their positive factual coverage, they don't publish anything positive about Musk at all!"
replyI have said that they have a strong negative bias. Whether the underlying news is positive or negative is completely irrelevant. Relevant is that they make things much more negative (= less positive) than they are.
replyNothing Trump or his administration has done warrants good press.
reply[flagged]
reply