UPDATE: Watch Tesla CEO Musk On CBS This Morning


We get a very brief glimpse at the Tesla Model 3 production line too, as Musk takes us inside the Fremont factory.

***UPDATE – April 12 – Video posted below from Elon Musk’s appearance today on CBS This Morning. More video from the interview will be released tomorrow.

Just recently, Tesla achieved a Model 3 production run rate exceeding 2,000 cars in a single, seven-day period. It took longer than expected to get there, but now the new target of 5,000 a week is in Musk’s sight.

Once Tesla hits that 5,000 goal, the automaker will release new versions of the Model 3, according to Musk.

But there’s still some work to be done before 5,000 Model 3s will roll off the line each week.

Video description:

“Tesla CEO Elon Musk says he’s feeling the pressure to meet production goals for the Model 3. Last week, Tesla predicted it would produce about 5,000 vehicles by the end of June. The company has struggled to meet previous goals, and Musk knows there are high expectations. Watch Gayle King’s full report Thursday, April 12 on “CBS This Morning,” which airs 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. ET/PT.”

Bonus video, mostly on Musk’s opinion of social media, but it includes a lot of additional factory floor footage.

Video description:

“Amid the firestorm surrounding Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Senate hearing, we asked another Silicon Valley titan, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, about the Facebook controversy during an interview Tuesday in California. Watch Gayle King’s full report April 12 on “CBS This Morning,” which airs 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. ET/PT.”

Categories: Tesla, Videos

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

56 Comments on "UPDATE: Watch Tesla CEO Musk On CBS This Morning"

newest oldest most voted

Cannot watch video in my country (Canada….) please fix

I confirm, Canada also (Québec)

Here in America, the Trump administration has decreed that U.S. media will no longer be shown in socialist commie-type countries. E..g., Canada, all of Europe, etc.

The U.S. wall has been extended to keep things from going OUT, as well as to keep people from coming in. We do apologize for the inconvenience. However, Canadians and Norwegians are welcome to apply for citizenship. Just not those OTHER countries.

Much as it’s tempting to blame the Trumpster administration for everything bad, the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) has been preventing certain videos from crossing international borders for years.

I’m about as far from a supporter of the Cheeto-in-Chief as you can get, but I don’t actually believe he made it rain on my birthday! 😉

He didn’t make it rain on your birthday, but he might start WW3 any time now. That could definitely put a damper on your next birthday.

I’ve heard it’s fun to stay at the DMCA.

Third times a charm, especially when the Commander In “Cheeto”, goes all “-In-Chief”!

Wrong! Failed Obama foreign policies forcing freedom-loving Canucks to illegally stream SuperBowl commercials. Why is no one investigating Hillary for nipplegate? NO COLLUSION!! ….. sad

Nobody will be fooled into thinking the Cheeto-in-Chief wrote that. I mean, your spelling and grammar are all correct! 😉

Double down on covfefe!

Use a VPN

If you just go directly to CBS this morning site you can watch all their stuff.. just google it, even in Canada..

That worked, thanks for the tip. 🙂

I understand where he is coming from since he and his companies are a frequent target but I don’t care for Elon Musk’s opinion about fake news. Who will determine which news is fake? That term is quickly starting to mean any news that doesn’t fit one’s agenda or world views.

Educate the public about the dangers of social media but don’t mess with freedom of speech.

You shouldn’t be able to post your fake news on Facebook or other web sites! But my edgy political comments are protected by the 1st Amendment!
Seriously, though, people have accept speech they don’t like. It is part of being a grownup. Which is why it is difficult for a lot of people today.

Agree, its a setup to be used as a political weapon.

It most definitely is. Watch governments abuse the concept of fake news to weed out opinions they don’t care for.

I don’t think you understand the concept of regulations proposed for disclosure of paid posts to Facebook and other media. Censorship has not been in the discussion. What is proposed is the requirement for disclosure of paid posts that the organization is noted withing the fake news article.

I wasn’t talking about where it starts, just where I think it will end.

It’s already been used as a political weapon … what was the latest number? They estimate something like 17 million people saw content that originated in Russian troll-factory with intent to influence our elections?

And some crazy number of people had their data inappropriately shared and used for carefully targeted political influence by US campaigns.

There absolutely needs to be regulation. While also protecting free speech, no doubt.

“Who will determine which news is fake?”
Yes. Exactly. The traditional MSM has failed miserably in their role of checking government – choosing instead to be highly paid stenographers for government officials. It starts to resemble state run media if the press fails to be a watchdog and refuses to challenge government narratives.

This about disclosure, not determining what posts are fake and are not. It IS about noting where the SOURCE of the information is coming from. It is not about deleting or censoring posts.

People can make their own decisions about the truth or falsity of posts. Once people understand the source of the information, that determination of truth or falsity will be that much easier.

Will it put an end to these statements from MSM?
“ABC News has learned…”
“Sources tell ABC News…”
(heard just minutes ago on ABC World News)

Call on FCC to Restore the Fairness Doctrine

I think this word “fake news” has lost its point. How about if we regulate social media to require open information about the source of the post? There isn’t any censorship, just a notation that the post is paid for by a certain organization.

Such organizations would need to register in order to post paid “news” or advertisements. If an organization has foreign links, that too would need to be disclosed.

This isn’t about censorship, this is about disclosure.

The original “fake news” was essentially fictional stories that sounded as if they could be real, but were meant to enrage people so they would pass the story around on social media. Thus, creating ad revenue for the fake news websites.

However, now it appears that any news organization that posts a story that somebody doesn’t like is called “fake news.” And while it is true that all news organizations like to slant the news for their viewing demographic (cough Fox news, cough) I don’t usually consider political slant to be fake news.

It’s not a question of ‘liking it’ or not (unless you are a well-known President) it is a question of whether the news is real or not. Yes, it can be when a dubious ‘news’ channel broadcasts a story designed to be ‘click-bait’ but it is equally applicable to genuine news sources who fail to verify the story adequately before transmission, often just to get the ‘scoop’. The are lots of other possibilities as well.

Seems a good thing to do.

“Educate the public about the dangers of social media but don’t mess with freedom of speech.”

Even the Freedom of Speech has limits. As the cliche goes, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre when there isn’t really a fire. Sedition and treason are also banned, despite our (U.S.) Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech.

And Russian trolls should not be allowed to spread their propaganda, aimed at inflaming divisiveness, hatred, and tribalism in America (and other Western democracies), just because we have a Bill of Rights.

Make no mistake: We live in an age of information warfare. Unilaterally refusing to arm ourselves will only give aid and comfort to the Enemy… by which I mean Putin and his Russian troll farms. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

“Who will determine which news is fake?”

There are reliable fact-checking websites. Use them!

See, for example: “Get Your Facts Right – 6 Fact Checking Websites That Help You Know The Truth”


And if certain people or so-called “news” sources claim those fact-checking websites are themselves fake news… well then, they’ve just outed themselves as the actual fake!

So the message here is that you cannot trust what you read on the internet…… except for these 6 websites.

Those 6 sites and any other site that actually lists their sources for their information which can then be looked up by the reader to be verified or at least scrutinized enough that the reader can make an informed opinion of their own.

Of course an individual doesn’t need one of these 6 or so websites to do this themselves but it saves a whole lot of time since they have done a lot of the legwork for us. They aren’t always perfect but they are better than blindly trusting a site just because your clan does. It’s a great starting point to follow up on an article you find dubious.

Now these sites can’t verify things that just aren’t knowable or are obscured behind walls of classification by governments or ongoing legal cases for example. But I find that 90+% of articles or posts that make outrageous or fishy claims can easily be verified to be false with these sites that debunk bad articles by simply stating facts that are available to the public and are quite known to be true but are just hard to easily google on the spot.

Sure – some of the six are helpful. Snopes does not even belong on the list IMO. Their ‘Fact Check’ section is typically just spin and more opinion with sparse substantiating evidence from sources.

None of the six should be regarded as having the final say on the truth. You still have to think critically when reading anything.

Citation needed.

Citation? Calm down. Go check out a couple ‘fact check’ items on Snopes. Lots of opinion – short on evidence/citations. That was my takeaway. Jimmy Kimmel does a better job at debunking.

I’ve always found that Snopes.com’s articles on a subject are quite thoroughly researched, and it’s always my go-to website when I read something that seems a bit “off”, such a story that might be an urban myth, or the chain e-mails that get sent around. It’s not my go-to website for political news, fake or otherwise. In fact, it never occurred to me to use Snopes.com for such a purpose. PolitiFact and FactCheck.org work just fine for political stories.

Now, the unwary should be warned that in addition to its authoritative articles, Snopes.com also hosts a forum, where apparently anybody can post. So while discussions of issues on Snopes’ forums are often interesting, they should never be confused with Snopes.com’s “official” articles.

So when the source is not identified, can we rightly call into question the info? How about when it is a ‘reputable’ MSM news organization like ABC News?

Are you OK with this kind of reporting?
“ABC News has learned…”
“Sources tell ABC News…”
(From 4/11/18 broadcast on ABC World News)

Both _imply_ that they cannot name their source, but
“Sources tell ABC News” is much better than “ABC News has learned”.

“Sources tell ABC News” is more obviously referring to unnamed sources, although not totally explicit.

“ABC News has learned” is usually news-speak for the same thing, but not as obvious to the viewer.

Your distinction between the two is meaningless. One is no better than the other. Bottom line message in both cases: “Trust us – you have no way to verify source or accuracy of report”.
If a significant story or revelation is reported online with similar lack of transparency, everyone gets bent out of shape. Clearly fake news! Or Russian trolls, or conspiracy nuts. But nobody questions MSM when they report without citing sources.

Regarding “mainstream” news sources, the thing to watch for is how a given news organization reacts when it comes out that one of its stories was fake news. For example, the New York Times fired Jayson Blair for writing fake stories. Similarly, NBC news anchor Brian Williams was fired from his anchor position — he was demoted — after it was revealed he exaggerated one of his personal war stories.

Contrast with Fox News. What happens when it is revealed that one of their stories is fake news? They just laugh it off, if they even take note of it at all, which they usually don’t. (How can they, when so much of their content is fake news?) My understanding is that no one at Fox News has ever been fired for reporting a fake story.

If you exercise some critical thinking, the difference between reliable news sources and unreliable ones isn’t hard to see.


No, that is not at all what I said. Not even remotely.

An informed electorate means every potential voter should exercise some critical thinking and common sense when they read. Sadly, going by the examples we see posted right here in this forum every day, common sense seems to be not so common, and the number of commentors who appear to actually be using critical thinking is appallingly low.

For example, what you said there, TwoVolts, shows no critical thinking at all.

John Dickerson’s passive aggressive comments toward Elon and Tesla appear very obvious. I dislike haters who don’t have the n-ts to come out and say what they truly think.

To the casual watcher that knows very little about Tesla and what the Model 3 is they make it sound like they just have this factory sitting there already with a line that they knew would never be able to make enough cars to fulfill their reservations queue but lied intentionally to customers and are just telling people they have to wait until the cars trickle off the line to when they will get theirs.

No mention of the Tesla 3 being a brand new model that started with no line less than 1 year ago. No mention that they had to build the line and start ramping up production last summer. No mention that where the production rate is now is nowhere even close to how many Model 3’s they will be producing by this summer and that they are currently building a second line.

They just show a clip of Musk saying “they get theirs they’ll just have to wait 6 more months or so.”

Sleeping in his factory doesn’t fix the very serious problems of Tesla , but , well Fremont is in CA just like Hollywood.

Musk it’s all for the show and that’s it .

Sure, whatever. Of course of the tens of thousands of cars Tesla produces are just a show.
I think I might prefer Another European POV, that is not completely without merit, but that might be asking for too much.

According to serial Tesla haters like you, everything Tesla does, up to and including mass producing very well reviewed and wildly popular cars, is all part of some gigantic confidence game to sell stocks and bonds.

You are of course entitled to wallow in your delusions, but since you’re obviously not a fan of EVs, why do you pick this forum to keep regurgitating those delusions?

No doubt your Tesla hater posts would be far better received on a forum for coal rolling. That’s several websites over from here. 🙄

Exactly. Musk is all in this just for the show. He craved the spotlight so much he cashed in his entire fortune of a billion dollars when he was 30 so he could gamble it all on risky ventures like startup car and rocket companies.

He knew that he would likely lose it all but man he craved the attention and the spotlight so much it would be worth it if he could just get 5 years of attention in the news. He could then go back to being a regular guy with a regular income. I’m sure he’s pleased as punch that he is still living in the spotlight against all odds from his reckless attention seeking stunts.

He could have just invested that billion dollars in a portfolio that would have him rolling in double digit billions by now but it would all be worth it for the attention and the stories he could tell to his grandkids when he was older and poor.

LMAO, Euro Troll POS and “clean diesel” driver continues his serial anti-Tesla drivel.

He just doesn’t want to face the fact that Tesla has, and continues to completely out-innovate his vaunted German auto OEMs that built his “clean diesel” he is so proud of.

Want to be inoculated against “fake news”?
Try “Media Literacy” (you’re welcome😀) Russian Trolls need not reply:

Inside Ev Videos not watchable in Australia for the first time , in this thread. Never had problems before viewing Inside ev vids.

It has something to do with YouTube and country policy. If you click on the YT icon and go directly to YT, does it still not work? This particular YT video has given many countries an issue, but there is nothing wrong with it on our end. Let me know and thank you!

Hi Steven , thanks for your reply.
“The uploader has not made this video available in your country” appears , even when i go direct to youtube.
I guess whover the “uploader ” is, needs to remove the restriction, as I can view anything else on youtube, even other youtube vids on Inside Ev’s

sorry, cant view in my country… thank you IP lawyers.

What in God’s name is the woman in the first photo wearing?!

Another Euro point of view

I don’t know but should I work there I would be distracted by this. Not good for production.

Wrong, your media are trying to start WWIII.

Unfortunately, most “news” these days is someone’s opinion. Even InsideEVs does this, case in point is https://insideevs.com/next-gen-chevy-bolt-coming-in-2025/ an opinion by a stock analyst with a very poor track record is reported bye InsedeEVs as fact.

InsideEVs has a high volume of news stories from just about any source. Given that approach, I’d say it’s inevitable that some articles will be well written, well researched, and authoritative… and some are rather far from that ideal.

Reading InsideEVs does require one to exercise critical reading and critical thinking, to “sort the wheat from the chaff”. If critical reading is not your forte, then perhaps you should look for a website with a volume of EV news low enough that the editors there have time to make sure every story is thoroughly vetted before it’s published. But if there is such an EV-focused website which publishes news stories, I don’t know about it!