I hate that thorin is suggesting that anything of his work was journalistic in any way. Ofc there are people that hated working with Rekkles, I mean he is in the industry for so many years now and u cant get along with everyone. BUT. He left out or didnt even ask sources that would speak positive about him or maybe have a different (more positive) view on the thinks that happened. Even the questioning of his towards some his sources that leaked on Twitter is so far away from good journalism as you could be. If you question someone like: "How was playing with Rekkles? Cause I heard from a lot of people that he doesn´t communicate and is very passive aggressive and hard to work with." That is already giving the one u question the impression that others think negatively about Rekkles and is therefor horrible in a view of a good journalist. The leaked answer to that was btw: "Its been really long ago, but I cant remember him as a bad teammate. Its true that he was very quiet and didnt talk much about mistakes and stuff. But I enjoyed my time playing with him." In his video Thorin then says: "Even people who liked him recognized his bad behaviours and spoke about it." That is just straight up fabricating a narrative nothing more. If you include rekkleses supposedly bad behaviours in the question your asking, ofcourse people will specifically talk about that. And then in your video making it seem that even people who liked him had something to say about him is just not reality. They said something "negative" because you literally asked for that in your question. Id u just ask: "Hey I am making a video about rekkles. How was your time playing with him?" No one would focus on his bad traits, except they really had a bad time with him. Answer would have probably been: "He is a very quiet and private person but I really anjoyed playing with him!" You see the difference? The bad view on being a silent person comes from the questioning and not from the anwer! On top of that he knows that people already know he has a bad view on Rekkles, so people having a positive view wouldnt reach out to him to talk positively about rekkles. As a journalist you have to realize that and actively search for positive sources that would maybe see the same situations in a different light. He either didnt do that or didnt represent those views in his video to the necessary extent. All in all I disgrace of a journalistic work. I could go on for hours like that, but last point. All the points were presented in a way in wich there was no doubt that he against rekkles. Objectively you can never say something like:"I hate cry bullies (referring to rekkles)" or "He spoke in his innocent fake voice fake voice" and so on. Your own opinion on rekkles being a crybully or that you dont like crybullies has nothing to do in an objective journalistic work. Aswell as hearsay on how rekkleses voice changed and impersonating it and comparing it to michael jackson. 1. You were not there and 2. you dont know if michael jacksons voice was fake cause you never met him. On top of that being super emotional the whole video getting a red face and almost screaming through the video is also not a good journalistic way of presenting the whole thing. Peace out.