This is a nice example of modern liberal ‘journalism’. It is smear piece on Elon Musk by the Guardian’s UK technology editor.
The main piece of a ‘news’ is that an anonymous ‘expert’ has declared to the reporter that Musk has ‘followed a classic radicalisation pathway’. The point of this is to discredit anything which Musk says. Since he has been ‘radicalised’ we don’t have to listen to it, engage with it, debate him. This is the equivalent of for example, the government declaring that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Once that is done you can dismiss their political case without listening to it.
The anonymous ‘expert’ apparently chooses to be anonymous ‘out of fear of retaliation’. That is absurd. The claim is that his (or her) life would be in some kind of danger because of open criticism of Musk. In the unlikely event that Musk even read the article are we seriously expected to think that Musk would do anything other than fire a ‘Tweet’ off? It isn’t pathetic though. Claiming that you need to be anonymous for fear for your own safety is, itself, a form of terrorism, because it paints the other as dangerous and illegal. I can see why someone with an agenda against Musk might want to do that; but journalists should not participate.
The article also manages to smear Jordan Peterson, the well-known psychologist, calling him a “pop psychologist”. In fact he is a Professor of psychology at a leading Canadian University. The ‘journalist’ is confusing “pop science” with “popular science”. Deliberately, of course.
The article mentions that Musk has a transgender child. One suspects that the this is what lies behind this snide piece which comes close to defamation. I cite this as an example of how modern liberal journalism has abandoned journalistic standards, in its conversion to the promotion of the liberal-atheistic-hedonist cult of the day.