Ok. That's on you, and doesn't seem to be anyone here agreeing with you.

The first key difference is that you tried to pass it off as current information (Strange that a site dedicated to finding the smallest resolution differences now say that resolution doesn't matter.) While DF gave the proper age, and natureof the information they were using in both of those cases.

You still haven't actually formulated a real argument to support your point of view (which I assume is just DF=bad?). All you've done is jump from vague point to vague point without really definding any of them.

First, it was that they were making too many assumptions when talking about leaked specs. When it was pointed out to you that no, they really aren't, you jumped to wanting them to be held legally liable for someone else breaking an NDA for some reason. Then, when you were told that lible laws don't work like that, you posted some random article about the factors that effect image quality. Now, you're back to talking about "misinformation" even though it's been pointed out to you by like half a dozen people that this isn't misinformation.

Are you just trolling? Do you have some sort of bone to pick with DF? Did you just not have a clear image of what you wanted to get across when you made the OP? What's going on here?

Sorry to burst on you, but a lot of news have always been based on suspicion and suposition.

You have to separate what is a news piece, a report, an opinion piece, speculation, etc. If you only recognize one them that is also on you, not on others being lemmings or you being a special being that is older than all.

Sorry to burst on you, but a lot of news have always been based on suspicion and suposition.

You have to separate what is a news piece, a report, an opinion piece, speculation, etc. If you only recognize one them that is also on you, not on others being lemmings or you being a special being that is older than all.

You need to understand that when we go sometime back in time, there wasn't need for source criticism on a scale like there is today. Basically everything in public came from trusted news outlet, and because paper (distribution) is expensive, the quality of the content was held in high value. At least that's how it was in the west, while you usually could spot the propaganda machines.

SonytendoAmiibo is reading DF as a propaganda machine, because these were built on speculation, misinformation and one-sided view. Todays clickbaiting news are nothing more than speculation, misinformation and one sided view. In other words, you may think DF is good because it's not as bad as others, when SonytendoAmiibo is saying DF isn't as good as it should be.

There wasn't a need or a way? Because as far as I know media have been filtering and manipulating what it's put (quality was better, but factuality not exactly) from at least before Cold War.

And you said yourself there were already propaganda machine, and you probably aknowledge brown and yellow papers.

He is reading it wrong because it doesn't convey the message he wants. You can see that the problem isn't the speculation but being negative. And unless you believe MS would reveal the info if queried and that DF refused to ask you can't claim they are being one sided neither they are misinforming since they are being clear about the source and what was informed and what is speculated. That is much more than what you'll get from most papers out there.

DF is good because they are professional in what they do and clear. And the OP isn't saying it isn't as good as it should be, he is saying they don't work out as he wants them too.

He is also probably against investigative journalism right? Because how dare those reporters get confidential documents, locked contracts, etc and build a case upon it.

 That's what he's calling DF.

If you watched the video or read the story, you might notice that they're not really letting "facts" stand in the way of speculation.