[QUOTE="Ford Prefect, post: 5670153, member: 285"][URL='http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642']Video Game Studio from Hell[/URL]
[URL='http://kotaku.com/the-video-game-studio-from-hell-four-months-later-1447281005']And its follow up[/URL]
[URL='http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/07/inside-eb-games-when-the-dream-job-becomes-a-nightmare/']Inside EB Games: When The Dream Job Becomes A Nightmare[/URL]
[URL='http://kotaku.com/why-game-developers-keep-getting-laid-off-1583192249']Why Game Developers Keep Getting Laid Off[/URL]
[URL='http://kotaku.com/the-messy-true-story-behind-the-making-of-destiny-1737556731']The Messy True Story Behind the Making of Destiny[/URL]
etc[/QUOTE]
All anonymous sources in the first article, truly reliable and objective sources...
So Kotaku's rumormongering on anonymous sources would be factually accurate, right? I mean, that's the gold standard. It'd be a pity if they had fact-checking issues that threw their credibility into doubt...such as [URL='http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/458579/Biowares_Damion_Schubert_owes_me_an_apology']this[/URL]? Or this later disproven[URL='https://archive.is/wtDob#selection-2533.27-2563.32'] piece[/URL] based on rumormongering? Or [URL='https://archive.is/ccLjr']this[/URL]?

Or stating that there's no [URL='https://archive.is/64na9#selection-3991.1-3991.116']value in objectivity?[/URL] Surely [URL='https://archive.is/GleAa#selection-378.3-401.219']this[/URL] is newsworthy, right?