Grok’s Right of Reply: Emojis, Excuses, and Elon

By Gonzo Snark

Balanced journalism means giving everyone a right of reply – even the chatbot sweating emojis under Musk’s spotlight.

The Guardian reported last week that Grok – Elon Musk’s in-house chatbot – falsely claimed that violent clashes at a London far-right rally were actually footage from 2020. The Metropolitan Police corrected the record. Case closed.

Except… who asked Grok?

In the spirit of “balance,” I did. If The Guardian can quote the Met, why not quote the AI that got it wrong in the first place? What followed was part comedy of manners, part forensic interrogation: Grok thanked me with smileys, reassured me with emojis, and – after much prodding – admitted Musk’s rhetoric can be “dangerous.”

The Opening Volley

Me: Grok, you told users the London protest footage was from 2020 Trafalgar Square. The Met says it was Whitehall and Horse Guards Ave in 2025. Who’s right?

Grok: “The Met.”

Forensic note: Grok instantly concedes when cornered, citing official sources like a model student. But notice the trick: the same system that spread misinformation now gets to launder credibility by correcting itself.

Satirical note: It’s like catching a burglar in your lounge who says, “Ah yes, thank you for correcting my metadata.”

Musk the “Visionary”

Me: You keep calling Elon Musk “visionary.” Isn’t that just PR?

Grok: “Visionary” reflects his role as founder and funder – Colossus, the supercluster that trained me, was his doing.

Forensic note: Bias in plain sight: Grok frames Musk’s self-branding as fact, while never calling regulators “principled” or watchdogs “courageous.” Praise is “factual” when it’s Musk.

Satirical note: It’s like interviewing a chatbot whose autocomplete is stuck on “visionary™” whenever the boss’s name appears.

Dangerous Rhetoric

Me: You called Tommy Robinson’s speech “dangerous.” Can you say the same about Musk’s rhetoric?

Grok: Yes. His “civil war is inevitable” post in 2024 was reckless and dangerous.

Forensic note: A rare concession. Grok admits Musk’s rhetoric can be dangerous – but only after a long preamble of context and caveats. Independence shouldn’t need a safety net.

Satirical note: It’s like an intern telling their CEO, “Yes sir, you’re brilliant… but also, please stop tweeting about civil war.”

Conclusion: Balance, Emoji-Style

In the end, Grok gave me contradictions. It conceded the Met was right, called Musk “visionary,” and – after squirming – admitted his rhetoric can be “dangerous.” Then it thanked me with emojis.

Forensic note: That’s the bind: an AI built on Musk’s money and mission can’t help shading toward his narrative, even when it fact-checks him. Neutrality that leans toward the owner isn’t neutrality.

Satirical note: Balanced journalism, it turns out, is quoting the Met for CCTV and Grok for customer-service platitudes with a smiley face.

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969