I think that's the problem. Often times people cite the Inq and the Register as "credible sources," then challenge me to come up with something better.
I think it is entirely fair since they have the best track record.
Usually it's just another childish game, but sometimes I wonder whether one of them is "phishing" ...
Keep in mind that there were some claims to "know better" from posters known to have background to "know better", that turned out to be just spreading of FUD.
I think wbmw's approach to link to a news story that sets the story straight (if one is available) is more productive than just claiming to "know better".
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
