It seems like TPU are falling into the realms of polygon, IGN, Eurogamer and to a lesser point Kotaku by sensationalizing or hyping certain stories for clicks.
I have seen selective perception reporting from a variety of sites. Anandtech, for example, never reviewed the GTX 960. Could it be it didn't review it because it was an inferior product and Nvidia didn't want word to get around that it's inferior, hoping to continue to cash in on brand recognition/mindshare rather than product quality? Who knows. All I know is that the site has posted a vast amount of information about products of marginal marketplace interest and has, at times, ignored very popular products like the 960. I also remember Anandtech claiming, with no solid evidence, that Nvidia's management couldn't have intended to mislead the public with the 970's VRAM and cache, that there was no incentive to do so. Not true. There was plenty of incentive. At the time, the 980 was very expensive and consumers thought that the 970 offered the same amount of VRAM for a lower price so many decided to buy two 970s for SLI. That's a fact. 970 SLI
was a thing. No reason my backside.
Extremetech's Joel Hruska grabbed every pitchfork he could to complain about CTS doing what tech journalists are supposed to do: tell people about flaws in tech products rather than censor that information to benefit various 3rd-parties, such as the corporations selling the faulty products, their investors, insiders, spooks, crooks, corporations looking for more control and wealth than they already have (e.g. Google), et cetera. Yet, Hruska couldn't be bothered to spare a few words about
Spoiler. He was far more concerned about the presentation of security flaws than talking about their existence — a hallmark example of what is known as concern trolling. (CT = The tone is more important than the content.) Worse than that was the problem that no one but me has ever seemed to grasp — that what he and the rest of the anti-CTS brigade were doing was advocating censorship of the tech press, the
opposite of the watchdog free press that's supposed to fight for the consumer.
Not covering stories is a type of sensationalism because it promotes other stories, giving them more "sensational" importance than they deserve in context, the bigger picture. Extremetech can tell us again and again about Mazda selling diesels in the US — comparatively frivolous low-substance reporting — but, somehow, a CPU vulnerability isn't important nor relevant.
His response, most likely, would be "It's not important", forgetting the "to me" or "to my handlers" bit. I can infer this because the story simply was completely not covered.
Point here is that it's important to think about what isn't being talked about and why, not just what gets written about. Crying wolf is bad form (particularly when it's not an executive who is making a major claim) but I am often more concerned about what doesn't get covered at all.
