WSJ article sources?

Community General Discussion
1

I don’t have a subscription to WSJ to read the entirety of the article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/activision-videogames-bobby-kotick-sexual-misconduct-allegations-11637075680

Are the entirety of its contents posted anywhere else? I’m particularly interested in the sources WSJ used to put together the claims made in the article.

I wanna know how airtight the claims are. If the claims are in fact true, I don’t want the article to be dismissed as a “hit piece” simply because its sources are bad, miscellaneous, anonymous, or otherwise unreliable.

If the WSJ is in fact nothing more than a baseless hit piece, it’ll be interesting to see what sort of counter-lawsuit ABK launches.

1 Like
2

https://mobile.twitter.com/MagdalenaDK/status/1460651106187444225

Here you go.

2 Likes
4

Nice try WSJ. I’m not getting a subscription.

2 Likes
5

WSJ is not some Gawker rag. It’s as trusted a news source as exists in this looney bin.

I know “Fake news” is the rally cry of the last decade, but they aren’t going to risk their reputation and expose themselves to lawsuits just to kick Bobby in the nuts.

24 Likes
6

This is bad for Blizz. RIPPERONI!

1 Like
7

What? Why not?

8

^This x 100.

It’s one of the few remaining news sources that is generally more factual than not along with Reuters, Bloomberg and the Associated Press.

2 Likes
9

Not for nothing, but WSJ is owned by NewsCorp…aka Rupert”Fox News”Murdoch. It ain’t what it used to be

3 Likes
10

https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/qvb7tu/ceo_bobby_kotick_knew_for_years_about/hkvdo90/

4 Likes
11

This is way more readable than Magdelena’s twitter thread. Thanks!

1 Like
12

W should be at the end.

13

Worst thing to ever come out of Australia. We’re sorry.

4 Likes
14

So you mean Wall Street Journal writers?

15

No.

Move the W to the end.

16

There are a fair number of youtubers covering this story. T&E’s vid was particularly entertaining as well as depressing. But yeah, anonymous sources will probably remain anonymous. WSJ is just one of the more credible news outlets out there. It’s not easy for some people to accept, but real journalism is still a thing. lol

17

I thought the /s was implied🙃

18

Reddit matters as much as twitter

19

I wouldn’t be trusting some of those you posted because I have seen bad reporting from them.

20

Technically you don’t need one if you know how to internet.

1 Like
21

I think you can sometimes get around the paywall if you find a Twitter post linking to the article (from the official WSJ Twitter account for example) and click on that. I used to do that all the time when the free subscription provided by my university ran out.

WSJ’s editorial bias is right-wing.

2 Likes