You misread them.
Let me dumb this down for you:
Kotaku has PROVEN TRACK RECORD of being in a downright spiral of information accuracy and journalistic integrity.
Their articles are worse over time, and they continue this trend.
By now they have burned their reputation in a spectacular way and became the proverbial "EXAMPLE" for the internet as a whole.
Sure, there MIGHT be an fully accurate article of Kotaku out there burried somewhere, but those are RARE ( those are in fact more rare as time passess! ), and there's implied NEED to MANUALLY VERIFY the accuracy of their "supposedly accurate" article - at which point you need additional time to do that ( time over than just reading that one article, time needed to go to different sources ) - at which points it's a WASTE OF TIME and you may as well go to a different source which is known to be MORE reliable with the accuracy of information it provides.

Kotaku, THEMSELVES, through THEIR OWN articles, have proven they are "GENERALLY unreliable" source of information.
Do YOU go to "generally unreliable source of information" EXPECTING high accuracy?
If you KNOW **most** of the articles from the given sources are lacking information, and are flexing the remains, ARE YOU going to go to them again?
Or are you going to seek other source going forward?
IS IT worth your time to manually verify EVERYTHING Kotaku writes, considering they have proven time and again they have little to no regard for journalistic accuracy?

In other words, listing Kotaku url as a "source" is going to be automatically DISREGARDED and laughed at by virtually all people familiar with their shody practises. And even IF you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, with their track record being rather extremely distasteful - you'd have to go OUT OF YOUR WAY to verify their claims.
At which point you may as well just abandon them as a source of information and go elsewhere. Don't waste your time.
It's really that simple.

Oh, so now you are getting salty that people just happen to have less time than desired?
And if you don't care, why ask? :P

Because I feel this is a bait with a thinly veiled threat of me being judged for every single word I utter.
Therefore I'd prefer to make extra precautions IF I'm even going to do try to partake in this mental excercise you requested.
I feel like, in my linguistic imperfection-infused speech ( NOT an Eng native speaker, and I know I DO make some mistakes here and there ), I would be jumped on and personally attacked, if I wouldn't be careful enough with my wording.
Which is awfully ironic considering I work neither for Kotaku, nor their competition, nor SBI, nor any company like them.
I am not your enemy dude.
And I'm not a journalist, so expecting me to give a comprehensive analysis of someone elses article, going as far as correcting their claims, doing editorial and stuff, is a little far to expect from a random forum member online; ESPECIALLY expecting me to do this "ad hoc, throw everything you are doing RL away NOW and answer me these!" way.
I have a life.
If you want me to make an ATTEMPT at journalism here, you'd have to wait.
Your salt is none of my concern. I am not a journalist and I have stuff to do RL. Writing loose thoughts such as THIS POST is easy and fast.
Writing carefully considered "analysis of someone elses work" takes TIME, which I generally do not have.

I think you underestimate how fast some people can type :P

Is this some sort of play on words? Because if so, it's extremely poor choice. Using CAPS lock for words ( which is because I keep forgetting BBcode on this forum exists, because I don't REGULARLY post here, thus keep forgetting, and when I do remember I tend to deem it not worth it the extra time to write brackets and stuff - after all most people disregard this and just read into what I actually said, instead of the HOW aspect of it ) - then this has NOTHING to do with capitalism.

Attacking me personally isn't particularly beneficial in regards to this conversation. It's just petty.
And I disagree with your assessment btw. Sounded perfectly coherent in MY proofreading ;)
And if something was hard to understand for you, you are always free to ask me to reword something.

huh ?
This is text... you... know that... right?

Because this is what freedom of speech and democracy is about. Having freedom to make an REDACTED out of yourself on TV.
Giving him equal time means the television channel doesn't get accused of being biased towards the scientist.
I also don't know who those "most people" are and what exactly are they supposed to realize.
If those people are intelligent, they should easily see through the science-denyer's claims and disregard them, instead of getting outraged he gets equal screen time.

I also haven't watched the actual interview. If BBC mishandled it, it's their fault. I don't work for BBC, and I cannot be held accountable for that.
If you are attacking me for what some TV station did, it's a at least a little bit dishonest, don't you think?

I'm not defending either side. I just want the story to be shown in as fair for both sides light as possible.
If you have a problem with that - how can you talk about fariness here at all?
Now that I think about it, WHY would you even care what >> I << have to say about SBI in the "analysis and correction of Kotaku article" ? Wouldn't you just concrete your feet in a belief you have, set THAT as a baseline for your views, and then bash me for whatever I say that doesn't align with your vision?
Maybe you wouldn't. I DON'T KNOW.
But to be honest, I am now even more inclined to believe your "request for in-depth analysis of Kotaku article" is some disguised BAIT.

I don't recall you hiring me as my representative. Your words hold no weight here.
You cannot say what I would think, as you simply don't know that. This argumentation logic you used is just utter nonsense.

Define your own then. Please. By all means!

Just remember that noone pays me for this, and I hold no legal requirement to do that. I am not bound by any contract or obligation.
And in case I don't do that after all - don't forget to get massively salty - that some random person on the internet didn't cater to your dedicated 'work for free' request :P

Well then maybe tone it down a notch, instead of attacking me personally for not meeting your highly artificial demand in a timely manner...
A demand which, the longer I think about it, the more it feels to me is some form of bait, through which I would be publicly judged - even tho I am not a journalist - nor do I work for any parties relevant to the story.

And to ANYONE who'd like to attack me personally for "writing long" - with many such individuals showing up in other threads I did partake in in the past - I write verbose. Deal with it. Don't want to read it? Then don't.
Attacking me "because long" is just impressively pathetic.