Is it a general issue with how people process facts/myths or is there something more specific at work here? The myths you cited are held true by a certain sub-population and fueled by a certain "news" outlet. Moreover, the "news" outlet claims that it brings you the stories that others won't, in a way causing mistrust of other actual news networks. Therefore, once the seed of the myth is planted, it is very hard to refute it for anyone since they are now also a part of the myth.

For example: Obama said multiple times and with multiple supporting documents that he was born in the US, yet I still encounter people that say that those were all fakes, and that Obama, his staff, and the media are trying to cover up the real story. When they are pointed to these facts they point back saying it's a conspiracy. In this situation first you have to prove that the people talking are not conspiring to deceive the listener, which is much harder to do than just to disprove a myth itself once a trusted source is doing so.

Edit: In terms of this contravercy, I was left with the impression that NYT did not act in good faith and neither did Tesla. I do not believe we will ever know exactly what happened since the circumstances were very specific. However, this definitely left a sour taste. The impression that I got is that Tesla will fight any negative press, whether it is objective and impartial or not, and they will fight dirty. For a moment do s/Tesla/Ford/g in everything you have read about this story and then ask yourself if you would still buy a Ford after that.

If I remember correctly the correct action is not to directly refute an incorrect claim but rather tell a story of your own with it's own details and twists.

Don't think of an elephant.