scar the 1 posted...Darkman124 posted...
What hurt this article's credibility for me was the fact that they named zero of the current/former employees they interviewed. Anonymous sources are always a hard sell, especially for an outlet that is already the subject of criticism/skepticism.
I agree, it's of course more dubious when the sources are anonymous. However, when the sources are many and independent, and they all corroborate the same thing, there's something there. This was what held up a lot of the #metoo stories - similar details about intimate behavior from offenders from several, independent accounts. Probably wouldn't have gone off the way it did without also people going public, but I just wanna emphasize that anonymous sources aren't useless.
So you just took all of your bullshit you wrote earlier and rewrote it saying "anonymous sources aren't useless" as your thesis.
Anonymous sources from a site with a terrible history of being misleading. The BEST you could do was this hilarious statement.
Case in point, the amount of former and current Rioters who bump this piece.
No, "bumping" does not mean anything at all. People hiding behind anonymity means nothing at all. Your continual grasping at straws to support this piece with little to no value is almost as questionable as the site itself.