The Musk Reports documents the public record on Elon Musk, his companies and the subject of race — what was said, when, where, and by whom. This page sets out the standards every article on this site is held to. They are not aspirational. If an article on this site does not meet them, it is a defect and we want to hear about it.
1. Primary sources, not summaries
Every factual claim on this site is tied to a primary source: the post itself, the court filing, the regulator’s own release, the transcript, or the video with a timestamp. Where a claim exists only in secondary reporting, we say so explicitly and attribute it — “as reported by [outlet]” — rather than presenting it in our own voice as established fact.
We do not use encyclopaedia entries, aggregator posts or law-firm marketing blogs to support claims. We may use them to locate documents. That is a different thing, and we distinguish between the two.
2. We quote rather than characterise
Where a statement is the subject of an article, we reproduce the statement. We do not paraphrase it into a label and then argue with the label.
This is a deliberate editorial choice with a simple rationale: what someone actually said is verifiable, and a characterisation of what they meant is an interpretation. Interpretations belong in clearly marked analysis, with the underlying words in front of the reader so they can disagree with us.
3. Everything is archived before publication
Social media posts are deleted, accounts are locked, and pages disappear. Before any article citing an online source is published, that source is captured — to the Internet Archive where possible, and as a dated screenshot in all cases. Where a source has since been deleted, the article says so and links to the capture.
4. Companies and individuals are not the same thing
This distinction is fundamental to how this site reports.
Litigation and regulatory enforcement against Tesla, Inc., SpaceX or X Corp is litigation against a company. A complaint filed against a corporation alleges corporate conduct and corporate liability. It is not a finding about any individual, including the chief executive, and we do not report it as one.
Articles in our Litigation section concern companies. Articles concerning Elon Musk’s own statements are separate, and sourced to those statements.
5. Allegations are not findings
We distinguish, in every article and in plain language, between:
- an allegation — what a complaint, filing or claimant asserts
- a finding — what a court, jury or regulator has actually determined
- an outcome — including dismissals, withdrawals, settlements and reductions on appeal
Where a case has been dismissed, discontinued or decided without any finding on the merits, that appears at the top of the article, not buried in a later section. Where a case is ongoing, we say so and date the statement.
6. Opinion is labelled, and shows its work
Comment and interpretation are published in the Analysis section and marked as such. Every analysis piece states the facts it relies on inside the article, so a reader can accept the facts and reject our conclusion. That is a legitimate outcome and the site is built to allow it.
7. Dates and status
Legal proceedings move. Every article carries the date its factual position was last verified. Where a status has changed since first publication, the article is updated and the change is logged.
8. What we do not publish
- Fabricated or reconstructed quotations. Every quotation on this site is verbatim from a cited source.
- Satire, parody or invented scenarios. Nothing on this site is fictional.
- Speculation about anyone’s private life, family, medical history or motives, except where a person has themselves made it a matter of public statement.
- Claims we cannot source, however widely they circulate.
9. Corrections
If anything on this site is inaccurate, we will correct it. Our corrections policy and right of reply sets out how, and how quickly.
This page forms part of the editorial standards of The Musk Reports and applies to all content published on this site.