Anonymous anecdotes aside, the scandalous news they report is that Consumer Reports puts Tesla's reliability in the bottom half -- yes, shock and consernation, the BOTTOM HALF!!! -- of all automobile manufactures.

Of course, 50% all automobile manufacturers are in the bottom half, and sure, it's not where you want to be. But none of the rest get special attention for being so.

Want proof? Do a search for the the following: CNBC consumer reports reliability rating.

What comes up? In order:

1. "Tesla Tanks": https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/tesla-tanks-subaru-soars-in-...

2. "Tesla Slips": https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/tesla-reliability-slips-to-t...

3. "Consumer reports yanks recommendation for Tesla": https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/reuters-america-update-2-con...

4. "Tesla Falls": https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/tesla-falls-after-...

..And so forth.

Note, however, that we didn't search for "Tesla". The spotlight given them is CNBC's bias. There's an entire automobile industry out there, and at any given time, half of it is in the lower half of reliability ratings. But only one is ever given headlines for it.

That's bias.

>* Anonymous anecdotes aside, the scandalous news they report is that Consumer Reports puts Tesla's reliability in the bottom half -- yes, shock and consernation, the BOTTOM HALF!!! -- of all automobile manufactures.*

Actually Consumer Reports placed the Model S at the third-worst of 29 positions, so at the bottom 7%. "Tesla Slips" is actually a pretty mild headline, considering they slipped 6 spots and 8 was the technical maximum.

> Actually Consumer Reports placed the Model S at the third-worst of 29 positions

It was Tesla as a whole that placed 27th of 29 on that list of average lineup reliability (tied with Cadillac at 28th). Tesla tied with RAM for the lowest "most reliable" model ranking at 49 pts, while squeaking by RAM and Volvo for lowest reliability of a model.

There's a saying in news media: If it bleeds, it leads.

The news media loves a hero and loves even more to tear the hero down. The former sells to fans, but the latter sells to everyone.

It would be bias if they were somehow going above and beyond, but look around. The most successful companies in the world receive immaculate coverage when they so much as blink too loudly.

Well the other companies aren’t hyped like Tesla, it wouldn’t be newsworthy, let alone be on the front page of HN. It’s the perception of Tesla that is biased. Countering all the marketing wank, that put them into the spotlight, is what I’d expect from a consumer report.

All the attention is probably net good for Tesla. The media was laser focused on trump and look at the result.

I personally have no opinion about CNBC and their relationship with Tesla. I'm only pointing out that it isn't fallacious to account for possible biases if they do exist. It's not just subjective assessments either; take a look at the short interest on TSLA, and the pricing of the put options around their reporting periods; they have people putting down a lot of money on their anti-TSLA bias, and have from what I've seen, quite frequently taken a bath as a result. (Now, there are reasons to believe that they are overvalued, but that's true of a lot of stocks. TSLA in particular seems to pick up a lot of this sort of behavior way beyond what the performance to date has justified. I can't speak to the future with total confidence, of course, or I'd be getting rich.)

I wouldn't be surprised if they have an anti-Tesla bias, though; while I don't know if CNBC has it, I have observed such a thing definitely exists, at a level above the baseline that any company would be expected to attract. But it seems decently balanced by the above-the-baseline pro-Tesla bias that also exists, so, shrug I guess.