Seems to me most of you guys/gals are reading the Inquirer the wrong way. I have been reading their articles literally since their inception when Magee broke with the Register, and I have found very, very few faults with the stuff they write. However, they *do* write with that specific tongue-in-cheek English style which is so rare with Americans. I believe you call it "humor"... and if you don't understand that when you are reading it, then you are going to misunderstand 80-90% of everything they write.
Like their crack about GPU and communism, for instance. Yes, GPU was an internal security/counter espionage organisation under Stalin, so that reference is actually totally correct. It does *not* mean that Eva Glass thinks 3D GPU is a communist site - and if you read her article and think so, then I feel truly sorry for you, for you are missing so much of the meaning that it is actually pitiful. The similarity in the names is humourous - nothing more, nothing less.
The Inquirer is usually careful to note that their sources are personal, rumour-based. And in those cases where they get their stories from other sites, they give links and references to them. Unlike some other sites out here on the Net. I believe this is called "fair play", and it is good thing. We should have more of that.
Blasting the Inquirer for making articles based on conversations and personal opinions - aka "rumours" - is, again, totally misplaced. Such things are actually important. If you wait writing something until you can actually quantify it as a visible incident in the market, you are going to be so far back in the curve that the train will already have left the station when you arrive there. I knew about the rise of AMD stocks half a month before it really hit the stock markets, and do you know where I got that information? Industry rumours. Sites like The Inquirer. Likewise with the bust.
Not everything in life can be benchmarked.