Note: I have friends and acquaintances who work at Reveal; I used to work at ProPublica, and the social circle of nonprofit journalism is pretty small. That sa

Note: I have friends and acquaintances who work at Reveal; I used to work at ProPublica, and the social circle of nonprofit journalism is pretty small. That said, I'm not making an a priori argument that Reveal is right. My objection was to you claiming the DK post has "as little bias as possible", when it seems to be a vigorous defense of Tesla, by a Tesla owner. Again, nothing wrong with stated bias -- I'm objecting to your characterization. For example, the author has time for rhetoric like this: > Of course, Reveal has shown no interest whatsoever in fact checking. If you have anything bad to say about Tesla, by all means, give them a call. They'll write an article about whatever you tell them. Yet this objective article you tout fails to note that Tesla -- about a month after Reveal's initial investigation that Tesla "left injuries off the books" -- belatedly added the injuries that Reveal called out: https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-left-injuries-off-the-books-but-it-might-not-face-penalties/ https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-left-injuries-off-t... > Tesla Inc. recently added more names to its list of injured employees after Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting raised questions about whether the company was counting all of its work injuries, records show. > The electric car company added 13 injuries from 2017 that had been missing when Tesla certified its legally mandated injury report earlier this year. Again, feel free to trash Reveal's overall aims and ulterior motives. But an objective critique of their investigation should probably note that Tesla moved to fix the errors that Tesla had previously denied.