[throwanem]

That's the Register for you. Having followed their work for well over a decade now, I might suggest there's a certain element of haste in discounting their coverage on the basis of their deliberately irreverent style. It's not that they're not nice to Elon Musk; they're not nice to anyone.

[DiabloD3]

At least they are consistent, then.

[throwanem]

Not only that, but a pleasantly bracing chaser for the sort of uncritical, even fawning, coverage that's so often lavished on the subjects of their articles. But there's no accounting for taste, of course.

[DanBC]

The Register openly stated some time ago that they don't care about facts if they can cause a "good bun fight". I don't know if that's changed, but it's not a good source if you want civil and substantial discussion of a topic.

[throwanem]

Did they so state? The only reference I can find to the quoted phrase is in a reader comment from 2007. I'd be interested to see the statement to which you refer.

In general, it's very true that the Reg doesn't mind stirring up a bit of controversy here and there. (I'm pretty sure they're still permabanned from being credentialed to cover Apple events.) But that's not the same as saying they don't care about facts, or that they're more interested in controversy than in accurate coverage.