By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A New York Times report alleges that Elon Musk, while serving as a senior advisor to President Trump, frequently used various drugs, leading to health complications. Musk dismissed the report by questioning the Times’ credibility, prompting criticism from Fox News host Howard Kurtz who labeled Musk’s response as deflection. Social media users have also commented on Musk’s behavior in recent videos, speculating about drug use. Musk’s tenure as a government advisor has concluded, and he is reportedly returning to his private sector businesses.
Read the original article here
Even Fox News, a network often associated with a more lenient approach to certain figures, found Elon Musk’s evasion of questions regarding alleged drug use unconvincing. The network’s commentary highlighted the clear avoidance of a direct answer, characterizing it as a deliberate attempt to deflect attention rather than address the serious accusations. This reaction from a typically supportive media outlet underscores the gravity of the situation and suggests a widespread lack of confidence in Musk’s explanations.
The situation revolves around a New York Times report detailing Musk’s alleged frequent use of various substances, including magic mushrooms, ecstasy, Adderall, and ketamine, to the point of causing health issues. Instead of directly addressing these claims during an Oval Office press briefing, Musk chose to question the newspaper’s credibility, citing past controversies. This strategic redirection clearly failed to impress many observers, including those at Fox News.
The tactic employed by Musk – pivoting to attack the source of the allegation rather than engaging with the allegations themselves – is widely viewed as a form of deflection. The strategy’s apparent ineffectiveness suggests that the concerns about his alleged substance use are too significant to easily dismiss. His attempt at a diversionary tactic did not succeed in silencing the growing criticism.
This incident adds another layer to the already complex narrative surrounding Musk’s public image. While past controversies might have been overlooked or explained away, the apparent refusal to engage directly with this specific accusation, even when pressed by a typically friendly media outlet, seems to be shifting public perception. The lack of a direct response has only amplified the concerns.
The criticism extends beyond the simple evasion of the question. The perceived arrogance in Musk’s response is a significant contributing factor to the negative reaction. The implication that questioning the New York Times’ credibility is sufficient to dismiss serious allegations of substance abuse reflects a certain level of detachment from the concerns of his critics. It implies a sense of entitlement that sits uneasily with many.
Furthermore, videos circulating online show Musk engaging in behavior that some interpret as indicative of drug use, further fueling speculation. Whether these interpretations are accurate or not, they add to the overall perception of erratic behavior, making it difficult to dismiss the allegations outright. The combination of the report, the evasion, and the visible behavior leaves room for significant unease.
The Fox News commentary is notable not simply for its criticism, but because it comes from a source not typically known for its critical stance toward Musk. This neutrality change hints at the widespread concern that has grown beyond political affiliations. The criticism reflects a broader acknowledgment that evading such questions is not an acceptable response, especially for a figure of his public prominence.
In conclusion, Elon Musk’s refusal to directly address accusations of drug use has drawn criticism, even from unexpectedly critical corners of the media landscape. The reaction demonstrates a general lack of acceptance for his tactics and a growing concern over the substance abuse allegations themselves. The lack of a forthright response from Musk only serves to heighten this concern and damage his public image further. The widespread concern reflects a growing skepticism that goes beyond political loyalties.