10) Exec discusses hiring journalists to do journalism to journalists. You know, digging up stuff about their personal life, kind of like (1) on this list.I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong about this, You're also hilariously ignorant about the most basic aspects of journalistic ethics.
The million dollar "opposition research" effort that BuzzFeedBen reported on is NOT journalism. Do journalists dig up dirt? Yes. Do they publish it? You bet. But here's the critical difference: The do it under their own names, using bylines at the very top of the page.
Contrast that with what the asshat from Uber said when he was asked if his plan to personally violate unfriendly journalists might backfire with, you know, actual journalists. What he said was "Nobody will ever know it was us".
Now I realize that sound ethical reasoning is not your strong suit. I mean, your comment history speaks for itself. But surely, even you can tell the difference between publishing information that's in the public interest under a proper byline and conducting personal vendettas on the company dime then doing everything you can to conceal your tracks. I mean, this is not a subtle distinction. In truth, this is the difference between ethical and wildly unethical, between acceptable and borderline criminal, between journalism and manifestly not journalism.
Further down this thread you have the temerity to upbraid others for "intellectual dishonesty". I promise you, dude, getting this personal is not a game you are in any shape to play. If you try, you will lose. And as an aside, I'm glad to see that others are also calling you out for the dishonesty in the way you've framed (read: misrepresented) a number of the issues you listed.
I won't tell you to quit while you're ahead because you are not ahead. But maybe consider quitting before you fall even further behind.