4 Signs an Article Isn’t Trustworthy
- KarbinCry
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
Written by Kryštof Novák (KarbinCry)
Edited by Tom of Moore’s Law Is Dead
Special Assistance by kari-no-sugata
Let's Get Critical
The phrase “media literacy” has become a bit of a meme in recent years, and yet in my opinion the concept is ever more important, as our world gets increasingly faster and more complex. No one has the time to become an expert on everything, and therefore we need to increasingly rely on others for the expertise we don’t have.
The greatest expertise, in a way, is therefore the ability to sus out who can be trusted. That’s the core of “media literacy”, or, to use a more fashionable phrasing, “critical thinking”. And, despite its increasing importance as a skill in 2025, and soon in 2026, it was made obvious this week that many tech reporters need to work on their media literacy based on how they reported on WCCFTech’s article “No, Samsung Isn’t Phasing Out of the Consumer SSD Business as the Korean Giant Denies Ongoing Rumors”. In fact, it was so bad that I have decided to make it a case study in how one can go about sussing out if a given article is worth trusting.
However, this is not about one article – this is about helping you, the reader, more easily navigate the endless stream of bad reporting we all must trudge through in the modern world online. Below are the 4 Red Flags you should look for when deciding if a piece of reporting is worth paying attention to.
1) Broken Promises
Let’s start with the background. On December 13th, Tom of Moore’s Law Is Dead reported that Samsung is preparing to abruptly end sales of SATA SSDs to new customers, and will eventually end their production after servicing the contracts of existing clients (https://youtu.be/qtQzR4ASkW8). Then, WCCFTech published an article in direct response to Tom’s original reporting, on December 15th.
The headline: “No, Samsung Isn’t Phasing Out of the Consumer SSD Business as the Korean Giant Denies Ongoing Rumors”, already gives us a hint at how seriously you should take this article. The headline promises:
Samsung Isn’t Phasing Out the Consumer SSD Business
The Korean Giant Denies Ongoing Rumors
Ok, so you should expect this to be about the broader consumer SSD business, and you should also expect to see Samsung officially deny some rumors. If the promise made by the headline is false, you should be suspicious. And in this case – you should be immediately suspicious because the “rumors” discussed by the WCCFTech article end up actually being about SATA SSDs, not the broader “consumer SSD business”. Right away, you see that the headline exaggerates the scope of the article.
As for the second claim, Samsung does not officially deny anything in their article. Read it - only an anonymous Samsung source is referenced by the author. So again, another broken promise. This article broke both of its promises quickly, and therefore should not be taken seriously.
The lesson? Treat a headline as a contract with the reader. If an article does not deliver what its headline promises, everything that follows deserves skepticism.
2) Grasping for Credibility
If a company spokesperson says something, that means the company says something, right? Well, sure – if it is a company spokesperson who is saying something...
A spokesperson is empowered to publicly speak for a corporation. That is why if a non-specific "source" or a "spokesperson" says something, the information from the spokesperson is automatically trusted more. But such people are never anonymous when quoted in an official capacity. They are, by definition, empowered to speak publicly. It is their role. If they speak anonymously, they aren’t doing so as a spokesperson, but just as a non-specific, anonymous source.
The author of the article in question claimed the credibility of “a spokesperson” when all they seem to have is an anonymous source. Again, think about it – what is this spokesperson’s name? If they are a spokesperson commenting for Samsung in any official capacity, then they would be willing to, or actually required to, give their name so the “Official Statement” has credibility. A “spokesperson” does not behave like a source leaking secret information. You can be an anonymous source or you can be an officially named spokesperson. You cannot be both. Presenting an anonymous source as an official spokesperson is a contradiction that undermines the article’s credibility and should invite skepticism.
The Lesson? Be skeptical when an article grasps for credibility that does not align with the reality of the claim.
3) Shifts in Meaning & Inconsistent Narratives
Next, you should always read big claims carefully. Your goal when reading an article as short and yet grandiose as the one in question - should be to learn something, not to be easily manipulated or misled.
In fact, what you should especially be on the lookout for is shifts in meaning. You should notice when a term is replaced by another, but not for understandable reasons like the use of synonymous wording for prose, for example. No, what you should be looking for is truly dramatic shifts in meaning. Because, if there is a real shift, that is the simplest evidence that the writer doesn’t have a consistent narrative. As an example, let’s take just one paragraph from the article in question. Near the top, it reads:
…rumors that the company would halt SATA SSD supply caused panic among consumers.
Then it concludes with:
However, for now, it appears that consumers will continue to see Samsung's SSDs in the market
Did you catch it? It opens discussing SATA SSDs, then concludes by talking about SSDs overall. Is this manipulation intentional? Honestly that doesn’t matter – either way it is a huge red flag. Either the author is lying to us, or they themselves did not catch this shift in meaning and thus didn’t understand their own story. Either way it’s bad.
If the author doesn’t critically review their article, how can you trust they’ve even bothered to properly review the material they’re reporting on? They likely haven’t, and therefore their article shouldn’t be taken seriously.
The Lesson? Articles that cannot maintain definitional consistency should be approached with skepticism.
4) Refusing to Reference the Original Source
Appropriate sourcing of information is critical for any piece of journalism to be considered legitimate, and that of course includes appropriately sourcing the literal subject of a given report. So, we have to ask: why is Tom’s video not linked to in that WCCFTech article? Why is it always that “…rumors circulated…” when, as far as I can tell, only MLID reported on Samsung’s plans?
A quick Google search shows there is no one else, and if that’s true - why not attribute directly? And if there are more rumors, why not link to those as well? Readers should not be expected to need to do a Google search just to understand where a given article is coming from. No, the article should let you check them directly.
Now look, you shouldn’t expect every article to source absolutely everything constantly. General facts, widely known information, or obviously exclusive or anonymous sources don’t need to (or can’t) be linked to. But if an article mentions other public information, other reporting directly, it should be linked. Especially if the article disagrees with it, as the one in question today does. This lack of sourcing undermines the credibility of the reporting and gives readers little reason to trust its conclusions.
The Lesson? When public reporting is discussed or disputed, it should be directly cited. Articles that prevent readers from verifying claims are asking for trust they have not justified.
Concluding Thoughts From Tom of Moore’s Law Is Dead
Believe it or not, the reason this article exists is because Kryštof Novák had already effectively written this article through a series of online posts, I noticed that, and eventually said to him “this should be published”. This is something I wish happened more often - the platforming of thoughtful posts made by individuals who would normally have their work go unnoticed compared to the far more sloppy work I often see from individuals who are already platformed.
Actually, speaking of platformed individuals - I reached out to the individual at WCCFTech who wrote the article in question, Muhammad Zuhair, in order to see if he could elaborate on his alleged conversation with "the spokesperson" at Samsung - but unfortunately I received no response. That absence matters, too, because the core issue is not disagreement, but rigor. Articles that make big claims during periods of uncertainty carry a responsibility to ask precise questions, maintain consistent definitions, and clearly distinguish between official statements and anonymous commentary so readers are not misinformed.
As demonstrated throughout this article, the piece in question fails to meet those standards. Its headline overstates what is actually addressed, its sourcing blurs important distinctions, its narrative shifts in scope without explanation, and it does not directly reference the public reporting it disputes. It should be met with immense skepticism, not quickly shared endlessly for easy clicks across multiple websites.
But you know what really bothers me the most? If the writer in question actually talked to someone at Samsung, why didn’t he ask any meaningful follow-up questions that would help inform the public? Simple questions like: “To clarify, will manufacturing volumes of consumer SSDs change in 2026?” or “So can you confirm that consumer SSDs, including in DIY channels, will receive the same supply next year as in 2025?”
Whether through negligence or choice, the article did not ask the actual questions that would have materially informed the readers. The result is not clarity, but confusion — and in a market facing real fear-fueled shortages that are hurting real people, adding more confusion to the situation is worse than silence.
Oh, and for the record, I stand by my report that Samsung IS planning to Halt SSD Production in some form, early 2026. I've already said so publicly: https://x.com/mooreslawisdead/status/2001434662497878171
Article Referenced in this Post: https://wccftech.com/no-samsung-isnt-phasing-out-of-the-consumer-ssd-business/
Video Muhammad Zuhair refused to Reference: https://youtu.be/qtQzR4ASkW8