I wouldn't see Intel bias if AT gave them the spotlight during a time when they announced/launched massively interesting products (like Zen based CPUs were/are)

I wouldn't see Intel bias if AT gave them the spotlight during a time when they announced/launched massively interesting products (like Zen based CPUs were/are). I actually expect them to treat a new Intel architecture exhaustively even at the price of not having time for trivial AMD related news. But if you read my concrete examples above and go to AT's site to confirm their legitimacy I think you will agree that this goes far beyond giving too much attention to one of them during a period of major change. They were willing to do exactly the opposite and refuse attention during a major launch to cover trivial topics for another company, they accepted being repeatedly played by the same company and never publicly held them accountable. And this last part is arguably the most worrisome because it's no longer about one journalist's personal preference towards one company. It's their journalistic integrity. When you realize you were tricked into deceiving your readers you're expected to take a stand publicly. And at the very least learn from the experience and trust but verify. AT still enthusiastically covered paper launches that never materialized, with no "grain of salt" thrown in there. And it doesn't matter which brand they favor, only that they are not willing to take a stand after being repeatedly played for attention. I still read them (only as secondary source) and not recommending against it. Just that the implicit trust I had when Anand was writing is off the table for me.