They purged contractors not long ago and are now laying off lots of people. Those are facts.
They reported that "production associates" are unaffected by the layoffs -- which doesn't mean that people working in production aren't impacted. It just means that they aren't laying off hourly employees in production. The editorial at the bottom of the article rationalizes the decision and reflects that it is ultimately good for the company.
IMO, it was a pretty balanced article that delivered potentially bad news in a fair way.
These articles you hear about Tesla are sometimes factual, but they're not published because they're factual. They're published to do damage and affect stock prices in a way that make specific people rich. It's the equivalent of playing poker, and affecting your neighbor's hand by distracting the dealer.
Every week there's a god damn article about Elon's "fall from grace" (what?) or about how he's trying to prevent unionization (you mean the fake unions that Ford has been trying to start, but workers aren't interested in?) or about subsidies (which are still a fraction of oil subsidies).
As a result, he made the mistake of criticizing the ethics of the media. So start expecting him to get the Gamer-gate treatment as the media pile on him even harder than before with fabricated news.
Every time I read a negative piece about Elon or Tesla, I worry "oh shit, is this the one?" and I look into the article and it's absolute bullshit. At this point, even if I read an article and it appears to be factual, I'd say the burden of proof is on the naysayers, and not on Musk or Tesla, given past performance.
Elon Musk is an amazing innovator and amazing PR guy. Few people can turn an idea into reality as well. But... he's running a high risk business whose rich valuation can go poof at any time. Because his personal name is inseparable from the firm, he's going to get heat for it.
The financial press has an obligation to talk about this stuff. Investors deserve to be informed.
In the actual email, Musk says this:
> As part of this effort, and the need to reduce costs and become profitable, we have made the difficult decision to let go of approximately 9% of our colleagues across the company
How is that not related to “financial trouble”?