‘Big 3’ Fake News Outlets Go After Tesla On The SAME DAY!?!

这位发言人声称自己并非阴谋论者，但他提出一个理论，认为澳大利亚的“假新闻媒体”（第7、10和9频道）正在集体对特斯拉进行负面报道，原因在于特斯拉不像其他汽车竞争对手那样支付广告费，而这些竞争对手则“资助”了这些电视台。他批判性地分析了三段新闻报道，指出了他认为的偏颇报道手法。 以下是每段新闻报道及其发言人的评论： 1. **第7频道（“7假新闻澳大利亚”）- 标题：“特斯拉致命车祸”** * **发言人的初步反应：** 标题暗示是*汽车*撞车，而非司机。 * **新闻报道详情：** 在Westfield Knox附近，一名27岁女性被一辆“失控的特斯拉”撞死。报道称，肇事司机（一名50多岁的女性）“未能让行，撞倒受害者后冲上草地，撞进附近一家餐馆。”餐馆内一名顾客也受伤。警方正在调查超速是否是事故原因。 * **发言人的评论：** 他抨击了“被一辆失控的特斯拉撞死”这种措辞，称这会让“NPC”（非玩家角色）相信是汽车自动驾驶或汽车本身出了问题。他指出，附近另一起一名80岁女性被*公交车*撞倒的事件中，报道没有提及公交车品牌，也没有将其定性为“失控的公交车”，这体现出报道不一致。他称之为“悲剧性的偏颇报道”。 2. **第10频道（“10假新闻澳大利亚”）- 标题：“墨尔本女子在特斯拉撞入……后身亡”** * **发言人的初步反应：** 同样，标题暗示是*特斯拉*撞车。 * **新闻报道详情：** 该报道覆盖了同一事件，开头便是“Westfield Knox发生混乱一幕，一辆失控的特斯拉撞入了……”。报道证实行人死亡，一名用餐者受伤。警方表示，“目前没有任何迹象表明特斯拉技术或自动驾驶功能是事故原因。”他们也提及了附近的公交车事件，同样只称之为“一辆公交车”。 * **发言人的评论：** 他指出，尽管警方后来声明特斯拉技术并非事故原因，报道仍在几秒内立即使用了“失控的特斯拉”一词。他重申了自己的“阴谋论”，即与其他事件中称“一辆车”或“一辆公交车”相比，对特斯拉事件却不断提及“特斯拉”，是因为特斯拉不打广告，而其竞争对手则不然。他称之为在公正报道方面“两项零分”。 3. **第9频道（“9假新闻澳大利亚”）- 标题：“当自动驾驶汽车撞车时，谁该负责？”** * **发言人的初步反应：** 答案是“TMD司机，你们这些白痴。”他将其比作将死亡归咎于锤子，或将洪水归咎于水管。 * **新闻报道详情：** 报道讨论了“自动驾驶汽车”犯下“老式驾驶错误”，展示了一些车辆（不总是明确是特斯拉）似乎闯红灯、危险变道或偏离车道的片段。报道问道“谁该负责”。特斯拉车主群体的Nathan Merit谈到司机报告的问题。James Ward讨论了该技术在高速公路上表现良好，但在城市规则下却举步维艰。报道解释了澳大利亚目前允许的L2级自动驾驶（司机必须保持参与）以及未来更高级别自动驾驶的推广计划。 * **发言人的评论：** 他指出，该报道中没有出现任何实际的自动驾驶汽车*撞车*的画面。相反，片段显示： * 一辆车“差点撞上皮卡”，发言人澄清这是自动驾驶汽车为了一辆*停着*的皮卡*刹车*，从而*避免*了碰撞。 * 一辆自动驾驶汽车通过停车“挽救了一只袋鼠的生命”。 * 一段“无害的”汽车为驶出而变道的片段。 * 他认为这些是积极或中性的事件，却被负面或误导性地呈现。他指出，报道最终证实，在澳大利亚，对于L2级自动驾驶车辆，“司机负100%责任”，从而回答了其自身的标题问题。 * **发言人的结论：** 这个报道在公正性方面“三项得了两分”，因为其结尾讨论自动驾驶级别“尚算合理”，但视频画面的使用仍然具有操纵性。 总体而言，发言人的主要观点是，澳大利亚主要新闻媒体存在协调一致、带有偏见的努力，旨在将特斯拉描绘成负面形象，这背后是由其他汽车广告商提供的经济利益驱动的，其证据体现在报道标准不一致和误导性报道手法上。

The speaker, while claiming not to be a conspiracy theorist, proposes a theory that Australian "fake news media" (Channels 7, 10, and 9) are collectively running anti-Tesla coverage because Tesla doesn't pay for advertising, unlike its automotive competitors who "pay the bills" of these networks. He critically analyzes three news segments, highlighting what he perceives as biased framing. Here's a breakdown of each news segment and the speaker's commentary: 1. **Channel 7 ("7 fake news Australia") - Headline: "Fatal Tesla crash"** * **Speaker's initial reaction:** The headline implies the *car* crashed, not the driver. * **News segment details:** A 27-year-old woman was killed by an "out-of-control Tesla" near Westfield Knox. The segment states the driver (a woman in her 50s) "failed to give way, running her down before mounting the grass and crashing into a nearby restaurant." A patron inside the restaurant was also injured. Police are investigating if speed was a factor. * **Speaker's critique:** He lambasts the framing "killed by an out-of-control Tesla," which he says programs "NPCs" to believe the car was self-driving or at fault. He points out the inconsistency that a nearby incident involving an 80-year-old woman hit by a *bus* did not mention the bus's brand or frame it as an "out-of-control bus." He calls this "tragically biased coverage." 2. **Channel 10 ("10 fake news Australia") - Headline: "A Melbourne woman killed after Tesla crashes into..."** * **Speaker's initial reaction:** Again, the headline implies the *Tesla* crashed. * **News segment details:** This segment covers the same incident, starting with "a chaotic scene at Westfield Knox where an out of control tesla has smashed into..." It confirms the pedestrian died and a diner was injured. Police state there's "nothing at this stage to suggest that Tesla technology or self-driving capabilities played a factor." They also mention the bus incident nearby, again referring to it simply as "a bus." * **Speaker's critique:** He notes the immediate use of "out of control tesla" within seconds, despite police later stating Tesla technology wasn't a factor. He reiterates his "conspiracy theory" that the constant naming of "Tesla" compared to "a car" or "a bus" for other incidents is due to Tesla not advertising, while competitors do. He labels this "zero from two" for fair coverage. 3. **Channel 9 ("9 fake news Australia") - Headline: "Who is to blame when a self-driving car crashes?"** * **Speaker's initial reaction:** The answer is "the fucking driver of the car, you morons." He likens it to blaming a hammer for a death or a hose for a flood. * **News segment details:** The segment discusses "self-driving cars" making "age-old driving mistakes," showing clips of vehicles (not always clearly Teslas) appearing to run red lights, make dangerous lane changes, or veer towards barriers. It asks "who is responsible." Nathan Merit from a Tesla owners group talks about drivers reporting issues. James Ward discusses the tech working well on highways but struggling with city rules. It explains Australia's current allowance of Level 2 autonomy (driver must remain engaged) and future plans for more autonomous rollouts. * **Speaker's critique:** He points out that the segment includes no footage of an actual self-driving car *crashing*. Instead, clips show: * A vehicle "nearly hitting a ute" which the speaker clarifies was the self-driving car *braking* for a *stopped* ute, thus *avoiding* a collision. * A self-driving car "saving a kangaroo's life" by stopping. * A "benign" clip of a car changing lanes for an exit. * He argues these are positive or neutral events framed negatively or misleadingly. He notes the segment eventually confirms that in Australia, "the driver is 100% responsible" for autonomous vehicles at Level 2, answering its own headline question. * **Speaker's conclusion:** This segment was "two from three" in terms of fairness, as the ending discussing autonomy levels was "somewhat reasonable," but the use of footage was still manipulative. Overall, the speaker's main point is that there's a coordinated, biased effort from major Australian news outlets to paint Tesla in a negative light, driven by financial incentives from other automotive advertisers, evidenced by inconsistent reporting standards and misleading framing.