In the time it took you to detail the supposed biases of the link (which you didn't back up yourself, mind) and post a throwaway shoot-the-messenger comment, you could have read and understood whether the arguments they put forward are persuasive and correct, something with infinitely more value.
The tl;dr:
* SolarCity is massively in debt. True.
* The solar industry as a whole, including SolarCity, has a tricky future since government subsidies are sunsetting soon. True.
* SolarCity acknowledged those risks and others, and disclosed them to the SEC. True.
* A promient Wall Street advisor rated their stock a "Sell" based on all this. True.
I see nothing in that article that is misleading, non-factual, or even a question of interpretation of unarguable facts.
I'm all for pointing out when a source might have a bias, but that absolutely does not invalidate what they have to say or "discredit" its poster.
SolarCity is massively in debt .. because that's their whole business. They take money from banks or companies like Google and invest it in solar projects, expecting a reliable return for them and their investor. Debt is the whole point.
Government subsidies are sunsetting as solar is getting exponentially cheaper. It comes down to selective reporting.
The "risks reported to the SEC" are classic fodder for reporters trying to make a story out of nothing. For purely legal reasons, companies will enumerate in the 10-K even the faintest risks to their business to preempt any claims.
It's a fake grassroots news organization funded entirely by a 501(4)(c) with a fixed political agenda.