[jimmywanger]

> Usually when I see (or say) something like that it's an exaggeration with a significant amount of truth behind it.

So by your logic, any accusation has the cachet of a significant amount of truth behind it?

The press needs clicks. Their needs (more click and revenue) is diametrically opposed to our needs (a somewhat unbiased view of reality).

Just by saying "<outlandish accusation> has to be backed by something" is ridiculous. It can be backed by nothing. As long as you click through, they get what they want.

[macintux]

No, my point was merely that dismissing that accusation because it’s ridiculous doesn’t mean you can assume there is no merit to the point at all. I have no idea whether the system is as employee-hostile as the sources indicate.