This anecdote recounts a seemingly ordinary Tuesday in November 2016 that turned into a memorable encounter for a Swedish financial journalist. The day coincided with the US presidential election, adding an unusual layer of tension to a routine press call with Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla. The occasion was Tesla’s acquisition of a German tech company, and several European journalists were gathered for a telephone interview. While the focus should have been on the acquisition, the looming election and its potential impact on Tesla, given Donald Trump’s stance on climate change, became too pressing to ignore. The journalist, despite explicit instructions from Tesla’s PR team to avoid the topic, felt compelled to ask Musk about the possible implications of a Trump presidency.
The journalist vividly recalls the scene: a yellow post-it note with the two carefully worded questions, white knuckles gripping the phone, and the audible scrape of the telephone line. Musk’s reaction to the question about a potential Trump victory was a mixture of exasperation and humor, exclaiming, ”Oh my God, don’t say that!” followed by laughter. Despite a blatant attempt by a PR representative to intervene, Musk expressed his opinion, stating that Trump was ”not the ideal person to become president.” Seizing the opportunity before being cut off, the journalist quickly posed the second question, inquiring about the potential political risks a Trump presidency might pose to Tesla, given his skepticism towards climate change and pro-fossil fuel stance.
Musk, while acknowledging the concerns, reiterated his previous statements, expressing disagreement with Trump’s views and emphasizing his commitment to sustainable energy and international cooperation. This frank exchange was abruptly curtailed by the insistent PR representative, steering the conversation back to the designated topic of the German acquisition. The episode highlighted the conflicting priorities at play: the journalist’s journalistic drive to address a pertinent issue versus the PR team’s desire to maintain a controlled narrative focused solely on the business transaction.
This brief interaction underscores the complex relationship between business and politics, particularly in industries like electric vehicles, which are heavily influenced by government policies and regulations regarding climate change and energy. Musk’s initial hesitation, followed by his candid response, revealed his awareness of the potential challenges a Trump administration could present to Tesla’s mission and business model. His later actions, accepting a position on Trump’s advisory council and subsequently resigning in protest following the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, further demonstrate the delicate balancing act he attempted to maintain between engaging with the administration and upholding his principles.
The anecdote also highlights the unpredictable nature of live interviews and the journalist’s calculated risk in defying the PR team’s instructions. The journalist’s decision to prioritize the politically charged question, fueled by the significance of the election day, underscores the importance of contextualizing business news within the broader political and social landscape. The story is framed not as a fantastical tale but as a real encounter, contrasting it with exaggerated anecdotes to emphasize its authenticity and the journalist’s surprise at the turn of events. The simple act of asking a forbidden question, driven by journalistic curiosity and a sense of urgency, resulted in a revealing, albeit brief, exchange with one of the world’s most influential business leaders.
Looking back, the journalist reflects on the irony of the situation. Musk, initially apprehensive about a Trump presidency, later engaged with the administration before ultimately breaking ties. This series of events prompts the question: ”What happened?” The narrative concludes by leaving this question open-ended, inviting reflection on the complex interplay of politics, business, and personal convictions in the face of a changing political landscape and the unpredictable actions of a controversial president. The anecdote serves as a reminder of the power dynamics inherent in media interactions and the journalist’s role in seeking truth and context, even when faced with constraints and pre-determined narratives.
