Tesla has called out the Los Angeles Times for publishing a biased and misleading article on the recent settlement between CEO Elon Musk and graduate student Randeep Hothi. In response to the article, Tesla tweeted that Hothi had accepted a "998" offer under California law, which is used to shift litigation costs to the losing party. The company claimed that the settlement was an admission of defeat by Hothi and his lawyers, not a victory.
Author's friendship with Hothi raises questions of impartiality
The lawsuit stemmed from an email in which Musk claimed that Hothi "almost killed" a Tesla security guard in the company's parking lot without any basis in fact. Hothi's lawyers argued that Musk's statement defamed their client. The recent settlement saw Hothi accepting $10,000 from Musk. In a tweet, Hothi stated that he felt vindicated and chose to accommodate Musk for a modest sum, highlighting Musk's alleged "public meltdown."
The LA Times article, penned by Russ Mitchell, has been criticized for its biased tone and portrayal of the settlement as a defeat for Musk. The "journalist" called Musk pugnacious and said Tesla cried, Uncle. Whole Mars Catalog claimed on Twitter that Mitchell is friends with Hothi, questioning his ability to report on the story impartially. Whole Mars Catalog tweeted: "Russ can not report on this story impartially as he is best friends with Hothi and TSLAQ!"
Randeep Hothi accepts "998" offer under California law
The article in question drew attention to a tweet from Musk last year, in which he promised not to settle an unjust case against Tesla, even if the company would probably lose. The article implied that Musk had gone back on his word, as he settled with Hothi for $10,000. However, Tesla's response highlights that the settlement was reached under California's "998" offer system, designed to shift the cost of litigation to the losing party.
Tesla's tweet emphasized that if Hothi had not accepted the offer, he could have been on the hook for significant legal costs when he eventually lost the case. The offer also expressly denied any liability by Musk. The company's response paints a different picture than the one presented in the LA Times article, suggesting that the story is biased.
This incident raises concerns about the impartiality of some journalists when reporting on high-profile cases, especially when personal connections may cloud their judgment. It serves as a reminder to readers to remain vigilant and critical when consuming news, as biases may exist even in the most reputable publications.
