The tweets at the end really damage this article's reputation as a reasonable piece of journalism (if that's how you choose to label Business Insider). It is absurd to claim that ones reputation is irreparably damaged by not having left the company yet. People have jobs because they need income and to support their lives and families. Even when a company is clearly screwing up (looking right at Uber here), employees can't just leave with out any consequence to their personal life or their ability to afford to live
I genuinely don't understand why news outlets do this unless it's critical to the story. I've seen good examples of Tweet integration in places like The Intercept, for example, but usually they involve some other facet of the story where the Tweets themselves are consequential to the reporting. It just seems like useless noise when done like this article.
The worst thing to happen to journalism in the past decade is that, somehow, "some random strangers on Twitter said a thing" became an acceptable news story. I think it's worse than useless noise--it almost inevitably implies a broader trend/opinion than the author has the evidence to support.
